list_people

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 does disclose two useful behavioral facts: results are filtered to the current user's visibility, and the return shape is id/name/email. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether the list can be empty, which for a directory-style listing is a real gap.

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, zero filler, with the scoping constraint front-loaded before the return-value statement. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter read with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return fields. The only missing element is any note on result size or pagination, which is minor at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the returned field set (id, name, email), which is useful given there is no output schema, and introduces no misleading parameter expectations.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (people) with an explicit scope: 'visible to the current user.' That scope clause is genuinely informative, but the description does not distinguish it from the other list_* siblings (list_todolists, list_projects), which the name already largely separates by resource.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the visibility scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling list tools. Adequate for a trivial tool, but nothing is spelled out.

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