get_card_project_guests

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds the detail about including font-size overrides, which is useful but not critical. No contradictions or additional behavioral caveats are provided, and the annotation carries most of the transparency burden.

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 sentence of 17 words, front-loaded with the main action 'list the guest groups', and includes the key output detail about font-size overrides. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is returned (guest groups and font-size overrides). While pagination or array format is not mentioned, 'list' implies a collection. The tool's purpose is fully captured given the annotations and sibling context.

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 100%, with the parameter 'project_uuid' already documented as 'Project UUID from list_card_projects'. The description does not add further meaning to the parameter itself; it only describes the output. With high schema coverage, baseline score is 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', the resource 'guest groups assigned to an invitation project', and adds a specific detail about 'per-group font-size overrides'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'set_card_project_guests' (write) and 'list_card_projects' (different resource).

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 usage when you need to view guest groups and their font-size overrides for a specific project. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling 'set_card_project_guests' is available for modifications. The single required parameter makes the context clear.

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