get_card_project_guests

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only nature, and the description is consistent. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the result includes font-size overrides for printed addressing, which is not derivable from the schema alone.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource immediately. It contains no filler and every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 well-documented parameter and a read-only annotation, the description sufficiently explains what is returned. There is no output schema, but the description covers the main output content and no critical information is missing.

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 only parameter, project_uuid, has 100% schema description coverage, including guidance to obtain it from list_card_projects. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and names the exact resource 'guest groups assigned to an invitation project'. The added detail about 'per-group font-size overrides' makes it distinct from generic guest list tools and from related siblings like set_card_project_guests.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies the tool's role as the read counterpart to set_card_project_guests, but it does not name alternatives or state exclusions, leaving usage to inference.

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