list_collaborators

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds context about resolving @auth.local addresses, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. It doesn't mention rate limits, response size, or authorization needs, but the annotations sufficiently cover safety.

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 three sentences long, each providing essential information: what it does, what it returns, and how to use it. No wasted words; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what data it returns, and when to call it, which is all needed for correct selection and use.

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 input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to add. The description adds value by explaining what the returned fields (email, display name) mean and how to use them, even though it doesn't explain parameters.

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 verb ('List'), resource ('users who have access to this base'), and provides specific output details (email, display name). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying that it returns collaborator information, which is a unique function among the sibling list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this once to resolve @auth.local addresses in collaborator columns before displaying them to the user.' It also tells what to do with the output ('Use the email values when writing to collaborator columns'), which helps the agent understand its role in a workflow.

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