Get Operators

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses pagination behavior in detail: how to use meta.cursor to fetch next pages and that null indicates the end. It also states the return type. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's simple name.

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 appropriately sized, with a brief intro, a clear pagination explanation, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the key details: what it returns, pagination mechanics, and parameter semantics. It does not neglect important aspects and is complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema only lists a cursor parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description fully explains the cursor's purpose and usage: 'Pagination cursor from previous response. Use the value from meta.cursor to fetch the next page of results.' This compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states 'Get all operators from Tidio' and defines operators as agents that manage tickets, distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_contacts or get_tickets. It uses a specific verb and resource.

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?

The description provides context about operators being agents assigned to tickets, which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. It lacks direct usage guidance such as 'Use this when you need a list of operators' or exclusions.

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