posthog_list_persons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the list scope, such as pagination behavior, authentication needs, or filtering 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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler text. The brevity is appropriate for a simple read-only list operation.

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 the simple read-only nature, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is routing guidance versus sibling PostHog tools, but an agent has enough information for basic use.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. The description only adds "for a project," which loosely maps to project_id, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb "List" and resource "PostHog persons (users)" plus the project scope. It clearly separates this from PostHog siblings like feature flags or insights, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as posthog_query.

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 only usage context is "for a project"; there is no guidance on when to use this versus posthog_query or other person/user listing tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond what the schema already provides.

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