list-people

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

The description discloses that it's a paginated read operation with filtering, which covers most behavioral traits. However, it does not mention response structure or potential performance implications. With no annotations, it carries the full burden and does well.

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 that efficiently convey the purpose and use cases. It is front-loaded with the main action. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing filters) could improve it, but it is concise and clear.

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 list tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers pagination and filtering but omits details about sorting, response format, and that no filters returns all members. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by grouping filters (department, role, active status) but does not provide additional context beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 it retrieves a paginated list of team members with advanced filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-person (single person) and create-person (creation) by focusing on listing with filtering.

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 for use: team management, resource planning, and organizational oversight. It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternatives like get-person.

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