mindmeister_list_rights

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds mention of the HTTP method (GET) and return format (JSON array), but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. It does not contradict annotations.

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, with two sentences plus an Args/Returns section. It front-loads the purpose and provides necessary details without unnecessary text.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists, good annotations), the description fully covers what the tool does, the input required, and the output format. No gaps are evident.

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 description minimally mentions 'params: ListRightsInput with map_id (str)', which is redundant with the schema's own description for map_id. Despite context signals indicating 0% schema description coverage, the schema does provide a description for the map_id property, so the description adds little value.

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 'sharing permissions for a MindMeister map'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mindmeister_get_map or mindmeister_list_maps by specifying it is about permissions.

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 retrieving all collaborators and their access levels, which is clear from context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling names are distinct enough.

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