todoist_collaborators_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns user IDs, names, and emails, implying a read operation. However, it omits details about authentication, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded and self-contained. Every sentence adds value.

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 description effectively explains what is returned and a prerequisite (project must be shared). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'todoist_project_collaborators_get' or cover potential error cases, leaving minor completeness gaps.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the tool description adds value by explaining the return data and its use for task assignment, going beyond the schema's field description.

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 action ('Get a list of collaborators'), resource ('for a shared project'), and returned data. However, the existence of a sibling tool named 'todoist_project_collaborators_get' with overlapping functionality is not addressed, reducing differentiation.

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 a key usage condition ('project must be shared') and implies use for task assignment, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., the sibling tool). No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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