list_partners

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only, explains the partner-sharing model ('each side keeps its own library but can see the other's'), and describes the returned structure. This is solid transparency for a simple no-parameter listing operation.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core question the tool answers. The partner-sharing explanation and return-format note each add distinct value, with no redundant filler.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is complete. It clarifies the domain concept, confirms read-only behavior, and summarizes the response shape, so an agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description instead adds useful semantic detail about what the result represents, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 defines the tool as querying partner-sharing relationships: 'Who shares their library with this account, and who this account shares with.' It also distinguishes this from other listing tools by explicitly describing the partner-sharing concept, so an agent can tell it apart from list_people, list_users, and list_shared_links.

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 context for when this tool is relevant: it is the family/partner-sharing listing operation, and 'Read-only' signals it is a query rather than a mutation like create_partner or update_partner. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous.

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