whoowns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does cover the two things an agent most needs: the operation is read-only and the result is empty when there is no snapshot or no match. It stops short of describing the shape of the owner values (users vs. teams, single vs. list) or any permission/snapshot-staleness caveats.

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?

Four short sentences: what it returns, the empty case, the safety profile, then the routing hint. Nothing repeats and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return semantics and the empty case, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the exact shape of the returned owners is left unspecified.

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 100% with a single required parameter that is fully documented with an example, so the schema does the work. The description adds only an indirect reminder that the path belongs to the repo, which is baseline-level value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: return the owners of a file path from the repo's CODEOWNERS snapshot. It also names the adjacent sibling 'consumers' and what that one answers instead, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when ('use before asking or delegating to find the right person') and an explicit alternative with its selecting condition ('use consumers for who depends on a surface'). Routing between the two tools is fully resolved in the description.

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