get_recipients

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 clearly indicates a read-only list operation via 'Get list' and discloses the return format ('List of recipients with their IDs and roles'). The qualifier 'available' adds useful scope. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the return format. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and a simple return structure, the description is complete. It explicitly mentions the fields returned (IDs and roles) and qualifies the recipients as 'available'. No significant gaps exist.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter semantics, but none are needed. The baseline for no parameters is 4.

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: 'Get list of available message recipients (teachers, staff)'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('recipients'), and the scope is clarified with the parenthetical. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_messages or send_message.

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 implies usage in the context of messaging by referring to 'message recipients', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Sibling tool names suggest its role among messaging tools, but direct guidance is missing.

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