collaborators_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds value by specifying that the tool shows 'who has access and what tasks are assigned to them', providing behavioral detail beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple list tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the purpose, the scope (shared project), and the information shown (access and tasks). Sibling context confirms this is a distinct, specific tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with thorough descriptions for both parameters (project_id, project_name). The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameters, such as when to prefer one over the other, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'collaborators on a shared project', and adds 'Shows who has access and what tasks are assigned to them', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_list_projects (lists projects) and tasks_list (lists tasks). The purpose is specific and 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 implies the tool should be used to see collaborators and their assigned tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., memory_list_projects, tasks_list). No exclusions or explicit guidance are provided, relying on context and sibling tool names.

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