yg_employees_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List' implying read-only, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required authentication, rate limits, or behavior when filters yield no results. The description is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide usage context. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function, filtering options, and a use case. It lacks details on return structure, pagination behavior, or error handling, but is mostly sufficient for its simplicity.

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 50% (limit and offset have descriptions). The description clarifies that email and projectId are filters, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify the exact matching behavior or format for these 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 'List company employees/users', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like yg_boards_list and yg_projects_list by being the only employee listing tool.

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 context on when to use ('Use to resolve assignee ids') and mentions filtering by email or projectId. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the provided guidance is clear.

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