get_staffs

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

Discloses the default filter 'active staff only' but does not mention any other behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, ordering, pagination). Since no annotations exist, the description carries the burden but is sufficient for a simple list.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with essential 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, default filter, and use case. Could mention absence of pagination but not critical.

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% (one parameter with description). The description adds 'Default: active staff only', which reinforces the schema's default but does not add significant new meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'List staff members with name, title and staff number', specifying the verb and resource. It also differentiates from sibling tools like get_staff_collaborators by noting it is for browsing the team or finding exact names for other tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to browse the team or to find the exact staff name for other tools', giving clear context. Does not provide exclusion criteria or alternative tools, but the sibling list allows inference.

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