list_action_plans_people

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the deprecation status, the default limit override (100 instead of 10), and the pagination strategy (offset or _metadata.next). It hints at the response containing _metadata but does not fully specify the response structure, which would be expected without an output schema.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, endpoint, default override, pagination instructions, and deprecation warning with alternative tools. Information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 (5 parameters, two modes, pagination, deprecation), the description covers most essentials: what it does, when to use it, pagination, and alternative tools. However, it does not explicitly state the response format (e.g., array of people or action plans) or error conditions, which would be helpful without an output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining why limit defaults to 100 (bulk common case), how extraQuery can pass custom fields, and the dual-mode usage (personId vs actionPlanId). This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions, making the parameters more actionable.

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 explicitly states two distinct actions: listing Action Plans for a person or listing people on an Action Plan. It also includes the endpoint and differentiates from related tools by noting deprecation and pointing to automations. This gives an agent a clear, unambiguous understanding of the tool's scope.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use for legacy Action Plans only if the user names one, otherwise prefer automationsPerson tools. It also explains pagination behavior (offset vs cursor) and the default limit override, leaving no ambiguity about how to call it correctly.

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