list_assignees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, how the assignees are ordered, or what an empty result looks like. For a simple list operation this is a notable gap.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is concise and easily parsed, though it sacrifices useful context for brevity.

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 has an output schema but no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description should clarify the shape of returned assignees and any required prerequisite state (e.g., task must exist). It covers only the basic action, leaving an agent without enough context to anticipate edge cases or correct usage.

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 only parameter, task_id, is an integer and schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning beyond stating that a task is involved. The schema provides no human-readable description either, but the single parameter and tool name make the semantics fairly inferable; still, the description should have added at least a hint of what task_id must reference.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a resource ('users assigned to a task'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_comments or list_buckets, but the focus on assignees is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_users or add_assignee. It does not state exclusions or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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