get_case_participants

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return data and is functional, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, or disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or potential exceptions like empty lists. Adequate but not thorough.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and result. No unnecessary words, every part contributes to understanding.

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 read operation with 2 parameters (one nested) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and return content. It could mention that the list may be empty or that sessionCredentials are optional, but the schema already covers that. Overall, fairly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for the parameters; it focuses on return data. No additional parameter-specific context is given.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all participants for a specific Pega case and specifies the return includes roles, permissions, and contact information. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_participant (single participant) or get_participant_role_details (roles only).

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 description implies usage for case access management but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_participant or create_case_participant. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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