read_project_collaborators

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, as it doesn't specify what 'collaborators' includes (e.g., roles, permissions) or any limitations (e.g., pagination, access controls). However, it doesn't contradict the annotations, and with annotations covering safety, the description's lack of detail is acceptable but not enriching.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration, which is efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (one parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action, though it could benefit from more context on usage or output details, but the structured data helps fill 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 0%, but the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain the 'projectId' parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain it. Since there's only one parameter and the schema provides basic documentation (title, type, example), the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('collaborators on a project'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'read_project', which also involve reading project-related data, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'read_project_collaborator' (which might handle individual collaborators). This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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