list_staff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields and the optional name_contains filter behavior (case-insensitive substring). However, it doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or whether admins are included in the same list or distinguished by role. It's adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by a usage tip and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 simplicity (2 params, 1 required, output schema present), the description covers the essential usage: what it returns, how to use the result, and how to obtain the required parameter. It doesn't mention pagination or sorting, but for a list tool with an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains school_id as coming from list_schools and name_contains as a case-insensitive substring filter on staff name. This adds real meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't detail the exact format of the name filter (e.g., wildcards).

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('a school's staff and admins'), and the exact fields returned (user_id, name, email, phone, role/title). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_staff_member and list_students by focusing on staff/admins. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives clear context: it lists staff for a school, and explicitly tells the agent to use the returned user_id with add_class_staff. It also references list_schools for the school_id. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it versus get_staff_member, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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