list_additional_parties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. The description adds no extra behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, side effects) beyond what annotations provide, resulting in moderate transparency.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every sentence is necessary and concise with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the main purpose and entity parameter adequately for a simple list tool. However, it lacks information about return values or pagination behavior, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 60%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'entity' parameter meaning and the term 'kases'. It does not explain 'page', 'perPage', or 'embed' beyond the schema, providing moderate compensation.

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 tool lists secondary party links on an opportunity or project, distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_additional_party' and 'remove_additional_party'. It specifies the resource and action precisely.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining the 'entity' parameter values ('opportunities' or 'kases' for projects). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives beyond the sibling list, leaving some ambiguity.

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