list_customers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that search performs partial matching on name, representative, and manager fields, and that workspaces without permission receive an empty list, interpreting count=0 as either no customers or no viewing permission. This goes beyond basic expectations.

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 compact and well-structured. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage scenario, parameter behavior, and permission edge case. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides complete context: purpose, usage instructions, parameter semantics, permission implications, and interpretation of the count field. It is self-contained and actionable.

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 only defines 'search' with no description, but the description fully explains that providing search performs partial search on name, representative, and manager, while omitting it returns the full list. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 it retrieves the customer list for the current repo context workspace. It also differentiates itself by explicitly mentioning its role as a candidate-checking step before specifying a customer in create_task/update_task, which no sibling tool covers.

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 a concrete use case: 'create_task/update_task의 customer를 이름으로 지정하기 전에 후보를 확인하는 용도' (use to check candidates before specifying the customer in create_task/update_task). It also explains search behavior and how to pass the returned id or name, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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