list_supervisor_interviewers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic operation. It does not describe pagination behavior, response shape, permissions, or server quirks; the offset normalization detail is relegated to the schema rather than the description.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, though it is terse enough that it omits useful context covered under other dimensions.

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 and no annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool confidently. It does not explain what the returned interviewer objects contain, how pagination works, how the query object merges with limit/offset, or what profile is expected.

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 60%, and the description itself provides no direct parameter documentation. However, the phrase 'assigned to a supervisor' does clarify the required supervisor_id meaning. The optional profile and query parameters remain unexplained by the 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 names a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('interviewers assigned to a supervisor'), making the core operation clear. It is broadly distinguishable from siblings like list_supervisors or get_interviewer, but it does not explicitly contrast with them or mention scope exclusions.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_interviews, list_supervisors, or get_interviewer. There is also no mention of prerequisites like needing a valid supervisor_id or an active profile.

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