get_guests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the main behavioral safety profile. The description adds value by describing the return shape (array of guest RSVP records) and the 'every invitee' scope, but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or behavior when event_id is invalid. Since annotations carry the safety burden, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource ('full guest list for a Partiful event by ID'), then details the return structure. Every sentence carries useful information with no repetition or filler.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with only two parameters and a clear output schema. The description, combined with annotations and schema, is sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gaps like pagination or error handling are not critical in this low-complexity context, so a 4 reflects completeness without exceeding expectations.

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%: event_id and fields both have descriptive comments in the schema. The description doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that the guest list is full (implying fields can be omitted for all). Given the schema's high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: obtaining the full guest list for a specific Partiful event by ID. It specifies the resource (guest list), the verb (get), and the scope (full, every invitee), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_mutual_guests or get_contacts_filtered_by_event that imply filtered or partial guest data.

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 phrase 'full guest list' and 'by event ID' provides clear context for when to use this tool: when all invitee RSVP records are needed for a single event. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'full' vs. 'filtered' framing implicitly contrasts with related tools, offering sufficient usage guidance.

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