list_participants

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 key behavioral traits: it returns metadata but not full conversations, and the verb 'List' implies a read-only operation. While it doesn't explicitly mention side effects or safety, the non-mutating nature is strongly implied and the exclusion of conversations is clearly stated.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by actionable guidance. Every sentence contributes value, no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is concise and well-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?

With no output schema, the description explains what is returned: metadata with name, message count, and timestamps. It also sets expectations by explicitly stating what is not included (full conversations). Considering the moderate complexity of a filtered list tool, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 context beyond the schema by mentioning 'metadata (name, message count, timestamps)', which semantically aligns with parameters like session_id, min_messages, and since. It also describes the intended use of filters ('find participants') but does not duplicate each parameter's 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 tool's function: 'List participants in a Harmonica session with metadata (name, message count, timestamps) but WITHOUT full conversations.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_responses, which retrieves full conversations. The explicit exclusion of full conversations further clarifies its 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first to find participants, then get_responses with filters for specific ones.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and directs it to a specific alternative for a follow-up action, making the workflow clear.

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