get_participants

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 states the tool lists participants, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or if it returns all participants or only some. For a read-like operation, it's missing details about the return format or any limitations.

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 that is concise and front-loaded. It states the action and the key output (handles and service) without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention what the output looks like beyond 'handles and service', and it doesn't provide any context about the conversation scope or any edge cases. For a simple tool, it's acceptable, but it could be more informative.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the only parameter chat_guid is described as 'The conversation's guid, from list_chats'. The description adds the context that it's from list_chats, which is helpful. Since the schema already covers the parameter, the description doesn't need to add much, but it does provide a useful reference to the source of the guid.

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 tool lists participants in a conversation with their handles and service. It specifies the resource (conversation) and the action (list), and the mention of 'handles and service' adds detail. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the purpose is clear.

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 implies usage when you need to know who is in a conversation, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. The sibling tools like list_chats and get_messages are related, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The context is clear but not explicit.

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