get_staff_collaborators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions 'based on shared bookings' and 'first match is used' for staff_name, but does not disclose whether results are limited to active bookings, time range, or if the operation is read-only and non-destructive.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise and structured.

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 covers the core purpose and behavior. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, pagination) and potential filtering scope, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'staff_name' described as accepting partial names with first match. The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool shows who a staff member has worked with based on shared bookings, including colleague details with bookings and projects. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_staff_projects and get_project_team.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for retrieving collaboration data but lacks exclusions or comparisons to other tools.

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