list_supervisors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'list active supervisors' and does not disclose important behaviors such as pagination, sorting, response shape, or how 'active' is determined. The presence of limit/offset/query parameters in the schema hints at paging behavior, but the description itself adds little beyond the basic list semantics.

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 short sentence that leads with the action and resource, containing no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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 four parameters, a nested 'query' object, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is too thin. It does not explain pagination behavior, the meaning of 'active', the role of 'profile', or what the response contains, so an agent would need to infer or probe to use it confidently.

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 description adds no meaning to the parameters; limit, offset, and query are already documented in the schema, so no extra value is provided there. However, the 'profile' parameter lacks a schema description and is also ignored in the tool description, leaving one parameter semantically ambiguous.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('active supervisors in the workspace'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It also differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_supervisor_interviewers' and 'get_supervisor' because it targets supervisors themselves, not their interviewers or a single supervisor.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_supervisor_interviewers' or 'get_supervisor'. The description states only what the tool does and gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or decision context.

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