getPeople

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) and contradictory (readOnlyHint false for a read operation). Description adds no behavioral traits like pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits, providing little transparency beyond the bare operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but could benefit from slight expansion for clarity without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite schema coverage, the description is incomplete for a tool with 13 parameters and no output schema. It omits details on pagination, filtering behavior, ordering, result format, and response structure, leaving significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all 13 parameters. The description does not add any additional semantics, examples, or context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get all people from Teamwork' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (people), and specifies the source (Teamwork). It is not a tautology and distinguishes from siblings like getPersonById, though it could be more specific about what 'people' includes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getProjectPeople, getPersonById, or getProjectPerson. The description does not mention any context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.