ktalk_get_participants

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that results are enriched and uncapped, and that output can be raw JSON or markdown. It does not state auth or side-effect details, but for a read-only 'get' tool this is minor.

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 well-organized: a clear purpose sentence, a short why-this-tool differeniator, and a minimal Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the key distinction 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 simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, differentiation, parameters, and output format. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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 schema has 0% property description coverage, but the description's Args section fully compensates: it explains recording_key as the required identifier and defines format as 'raw' (JSON) or 'markdown', including the default behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full participant list of a KTalk recording.' It also clearly differentiates from sibling tools by contrasting with the capped 'list/details response' and framing this as the dedicated, complete participant-list tool.

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 gives clear usage context: use this tool when the standard list/details participant list would be truncated by maxParticipantCount. It does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative, but the boundary is clear enough.

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