list_template_collaborators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or what happens if the template_id is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameter. Every part of the sentence contributes meaningful information about what the tool does.

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 complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It explains the return data but omits critical context: the required parameter 'template_id' is undocumented, behavioral traits like error handling are missing, and there's no output schema to clarify the return structure. For a tool that retrieves data based on an input, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention the 'template_id' parameter at all, leaving it completely undocumented. With 1 required parameter and no explanation in the description, the agent lacks context on what this parameter represents or how to use it, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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's purpose: 'Returns the list of template collaborators' with specific details about what information is included (GUID, name, email, HTTPS link). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('template collaborators'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'query_template' beyond the focus on collaborators.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid template_id), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'query_template' which might also retrieve template-related data. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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