who_holds

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool lists 'active' leases, but omits details on result limits, sorting, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The return format is also unspecified, relying on inference.

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 12 words, front-loading the action and resource. It conveys the core purpose efficiently with zero wasted words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on return structure, pagination, or any behavioral constraints. It is minimally adequate but leaves several aspects unspecified.

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 schema has no description for the 'surface' parameter (0% coverage). The tool description adds that it is optional and filters results for one surface, which provides essential context. However, it does not clarify what a 'surface' is (e.g., ID, name) or valid values, leaving ambiguity.

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 'active advisory leases' within the workspace. It also specifies the optional filter 'for one surface', making the tool's function precise and distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_tasks or list_participants.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. However, the resource name 'advisory leases' is unique among siblings, so context implies usage for listing leases. The optional surface filter is mentioned but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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