List authors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the results carry ids consumable by create_post, which is useful return-value context, but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/cursor parameters existing.

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?

A single tight sentence with no waste, and the most decision-relevant fact (these are the ids create_post needs) is placed at the end for emphasis. It is telegraphic but not padded.

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 no output schema, the definition covers what the resource is and why you'd want it, and annotations cover safety. It still leaves pagination semantics and the shape of returned entries (id plus name?) unaddressed, which matters given the undocumented limit/cursor params.

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 only 33% — projectId is documented in the schema, but limit and cursor are bare. The description's 'in this project' echoes projectId without adding format or default detail, and it never mentions that the list is paginated or what limit/cursor do.

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 identifies the resource (bylines/authors available in a project) and ties it to a concrete downstream use ('the ids create_post takes'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or list_tags. The verb 'list' is only implicit, but the noun phrase is specific enough that an agent knows what it returns.

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?

It hints at when to reach for it — when you need author ids for create_post — which is a genuine usage cue. However it gives no guidance on alternatives (e.g. list_projects for the projectId, or create_author when no byline exists), so usage is implied rather than stated.

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