list_authors

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds the pagination behavior, but beyond that, no additional traits (e.g., sorting, rate limits) are disclosed. With annotations shouldering the burden, the description adds marginal value.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. Every element serves a purpose: verb, resource, and optional feature. Highly efficient.

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 absence of an output schema and low complexity, the description covers the essential purpose and pagination feature. It could be improved by specifying the return structure (e.g., each author's fields), but the tool name and annotations compensate sufficiently.

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% with each parameter already described. The description's mention of 'optional pagination' provides a high-level hint but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('all test case authors'), and the optional feature (pagination). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'get_author' by implying listing vs. single retrieval.

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 mentions optional pagination but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_author' or other list tools. No exclusions or context for when it is inappropriate are provided.

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