list_people

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

The description states the tool is 'Read-only' and describes the return format, but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects beyond the listed behavior. However, for a simple read operation, the level of disclosure is adequate.

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 concise yet comprehensive, with a clear structure: purpose, usage note, parameter block, and return note. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 low complexity and the presence of an output description (though no formal output schema), the description covers all contextual needs: what the tool does, when to use it, parameters, and return format. It is fully self-contained.

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 description adds meaningful descriptions for each parameter (page, size, with_hidden) beyond the schema's basic type/default definitions. The schema had 0% coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining the semantics.

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 action ('list'), the resource ('all recognized people'), and the context (face clusters in the library). It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling `search_people`, avoiding ambiguity.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('browse who appears... or find a person's ID') and when not to ('For searching by name, use search_people instead'). This provides clear usage context and alternative.

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