list_committees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('List') and states the return values. While it doesn't explicitly mention safety or permissions, the action is inherently non-destructive and the description is transparent about the behavior.

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 16 words, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every part is necessary, with no redundancy or fluff. It is efficiently structured for quick understanding.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description fully covers the essential aspects: what the tool does (list committees), the input (branch), and the output (slug, name, URL). No output schema exists, but the description compensates. It is complete for this straightforward tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the parameter 'branch' with an example, but the example is the same as in the schema. No additional semantic information beyond the schema is provided, so score remains at baseline.

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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'committees' with a clear scope 'for a given branch'. It also states the return fields (slug, name, URL). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_branches, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly states the condition for use (given a branch) and implies listing all committees. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context of siblings and the specificity of the action provide sufficient guidance.

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