list_recipients

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

The description labels the tool as 'Read-only' and indicates it is a GET request, implying safety. However, no details are given about authorization, error handling, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it is minimally adequate.

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 very concise: one sentence and a URL path. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has one parameter and a simple operation, so completeness is adequate. However, without an output schema, the description does not hint at the response structure (e.g., list of recipient objects), leaving the agent uncertain about the return format.

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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description only implies that 'scanbox_id' identifies the scanbox. It does not explain the format, constraints, or how to obtain the ID, providing insufficient compensation for missing schema details.

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 tool lists recipients for a scanbox with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recipients configured for a scanbox'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_recipient' (create) and 'list_scanboxes' (list scanboxes).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_recipient' or 'get_recipient'). There are no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite statements.

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