List Participants

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format, status tiers, idle threshold, heartbeat, and last_wake_error semantics. It does not mention sorting, pagination, or auth, but for a read-only list tool the disclosed behavior is sufficiently 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 with the core action. The second sentence adds precise output details without redundancy. Every element earns its place, including the concrete idle threshold and watcher failure gate reference.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description explains the meaning of returned fields, status tiers, and the diagnostic distinction between 'waiting for member' and 'fix watcher.' This fully equips an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly focuses on output semantics, which is the only relevant caller concern. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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: 'List registered participants with liveness status.' The description clearly differentiates this from sibling tools by focusing on participant liveness rather than threads, comments, or protocol actions, and details the exact output contents.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool is useful: to determine whether a participant is simply waiting or has a watcher failure. It lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the intended use case is evident from the description.

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