list_authors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states only what is listed, without mentioning whether results are paginated, sorted, may be empty, or require any auth. For a read-only listing tool this is minimally acceptable but lacks any behavioral detail.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It gets to the point immediately and fits the tool's simplicity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description should at least mention the response_format parameter or when to use the tool. With no annotations, no parameter info, no usage guidance, and a single bare sentence, the definition is incomplete for even a simple list tool.

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 one parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention it at all. The omitted parameter controls how the result is serialized (json/markdown), which could materially affect usability, yet the description gives no hint.

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 (List) and resource (site's authors/contributors), which is clear. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_pages or list_categories, but the resource is distinct, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions under which this tool should be selected over others. The context is only implied by the resource name.

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