pipeshub_directory

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: whoami errors if the credential is expired/revoked, and output shape varies by action. It also notes that whoami is 'confirmed against the server', implying a network round-trip. These are useful, non-obvious details that help an agent understand side effects and failure modes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized: a one-line purpose, then a bullet list of actions with their unique characteristics. It front-loads the main intent and uses formatting to make scanning easy. Every sentence earns its place – no filler or redundancy. The length is appropriate for a multi-action tool.

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 tool is read-only with five actions and a fully self-describing schema, the description covers the essential information: each action's purpose, when to use it, required vs optional parameters, and the nature of the output (e.g., userCount, capability flags). It could mention default pagination values or what happens on empty results, but those are minor gaps. No output schema exists, so the description must convey output variability – it does. Overall, an agent can correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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% – every parameter (action, page, limit, search, userId) has a description in the schema. The description essentially mirrors the schema content, re-stating what each action does and its parameters. Since the schema already carries the full burden, the description adds little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate; it doesn't hurt but doesn't enhance.

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 opens with 'Look up people, groups, and teams in PipesHub' – a specific verb, resource, and domain. It enumerates five distinct actions (whoami, list_users, get_user, list_groups, list_my_teams) and describes what each returns, making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like pipeshub_search or pipeshub_get_record_content. No ambiguity remains about what the tool is for.

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 explicit per-action usage guidance: it tells you to use whoami when you need the caller's identity, and even notes to use it before get_user on yourself. It lists prerequisites for get_user (userId) and states that list_* actions use pagination. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast this tool with siblings (e.g., 'for full-text search use pipeshub_search'), so it's not perfect, but it's clear enough for an agent to choose the correct action within the tool.

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