List Author Aliases

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact on top of that: the operation is gated behind an admin role, which the agent could not learn from structured fields. It omits result volume/pagination, but an output schema exists to fill that in.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose first then the gating constraint, with no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the title or wasted.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool with rich annotations, a fully documented two-parameter schema, and an output schema, so little prose is required. Purpose and the admin prerequisite are stated; only guidance on filtering (workspace scoping or canonical_author) versus listing everything is missing.

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% and both parameters (workspace_id, canonical_author) carry their own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about either filter and arguably works against them by saying "List all", which implies no filtering is possible even though optional filters exist.

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 ("List all registered author aliases"), which is far clearer than the bare tool name alone. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related siblings team_add_author_alias, team_remove_author_alias, team_resolve_author, or team_consolidate_authors, so an agent must infer the difference from the names.

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?

"Requires admin role" supplies a meaningful precondition, but the description never says when to choose this tool over related siblings such as team_resolve_author or the add/remove alias tools. Usage is implied by the verb rather than spelled out.

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