list_object_collaborators

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's mention of 'list' is consistent. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'notification collaborators' and recommending parameter sets, but behavioral traits are well-covered by 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 consists of three short, clear sentences with no filler. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, preferred usage, and advanced usage.

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 7 parameters and multiple grouping possibilities, the description covers the key usage patterns. The presence of an output schema likely covers return format. A small gap is implicit requirement to provide one of the grouping sets, but the context is largely complete.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are minimal ('a string that will be trimmed'). The description adds significant meaning by explaining the grouping of parameters (project+issueIdentifier vs teamspace+document vs objectId+objectClass), which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 'List notification collaborators on a Huly issue, document, or raw object.' This specifies the verb (list), resource (notification collaborators), and scope (issue/document/raw object), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_issues or list_documents.

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 provides clear guidance on which parameter combinations to use: 'prefer friendly targets: project+issueIdentifier for issues or teamspace+document for documents' and 'advanced callers may pass objectId+objectClass directly.' This helps the agent choose the correct parameters, though it does not explicitly exclude alternative usages.

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