list_all_people

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

The description mentions 'automatic pagination' as a behavioral trait, which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 concise sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose. It is efficiently front-loaded, though slightly more detail could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the return value contains. It only mentions pagination but not the structure of returned data (e.g., list of people with fields). This is a significant gap for a simple listing 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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as it does not compensate for parameter details beyond the schema.

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 gets all people from Officient with automatic pagination, specifying the resource and a key feature. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_people', leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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 like list_people or other listing tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or preferred use cases.

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