list_automations_people

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

With no annotations, the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get' and the explicit GET endpoint indicate a read-only list operation, which is useful, but it does not describe pagination, response shape, authentication needs, or default behavior with no filters.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the endpoint is appended for disambiguation. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward list tool.

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?

The core semantics are clear: an optional-filter list of automation-people pairings. Given the low parameter complexity and the schema covering all filters, the description is largely complete. It only omits pagination and response details, which is a minor gap because no output schema exists.

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 all four parameters (status, personId, automationId, extraQuery) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Get a list') and resource ('pairings of Automations and the People'), and adds a temporal nuance ('have or will be run'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_automations_person (single pairing) and list_automations (automations only).

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_automations_person or list_automations, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource name and endpoint.

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