collaboration_repo_collaborators

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

The description states 'read-only' and the default repo behavior, which is helpful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication, error cases, or response format, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sentences for behavior and defaults), but it is efficient 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential functionality. However, it omits details about return structure and potential limitations, which are not critical but would improve completeness.

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%, and the description only adds a default value hint for the repo parameter. It does not explain the format or meaning of the repo parameter (e.g., name, ID, full path). This is insufficient for an agent to know how to populate it correctly.

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' and the resource 'direct collaborators of a repo'. It adds that it is read-only and defaults to the plugin default repo, distinguishing it from sibling tools like collaboration_repo_collaborator_remove or collaboration_repo_collaborator_set.

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 for listing collaborators and notes its read-only nature, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like collaboration_repo_access_inspect or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context from sibling names helps, but the description lacks direct guidance.

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