Get contest permissions (admin)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the required admin authorization and the exact role types returned (editor/viewer/admin). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the authorization requirement is efficiently placed in the second.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It states the resource, the roles involved, and the necessary permission to call it, leaving no missing information needed for a correct invocation.

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% and the only parameter, contest_id, is already well documented as a 24-character ObjectId. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('which users hold editor/viewer/admin roles on a contest'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling mutation tools like set/remove_contest_permission and from generic get_contest.

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 gives clear context by stating the authorization prerequisite: 'Requires the authenticated account to administer that contest.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the role-listing scope and admin requirement are enough to guide selection among the closely related permission siblings.

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