list_people

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it declares 'Read-only' itself, discloses a visibility/permission constraint (external contacts only as visible to the key owner), and reveals validation behavior (unknown e-mail is rejected). It does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether inactive members are included, which are the remaining transparency gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place, though the nested parenthetical explaining that owner_email is a 'pseudo e-mail usable as owner' packs a lot into one clause and slows first-pass parsing slightly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, the field-level shape, the visibility constraint, the safety profile, and how the values feed into sibling write tools. There is no material gap left for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to add and the baseline applies. Nothing in the text misleads about inputs, and the parenthetical notes clarify the shape of the returned e-mail values rather than input arguments.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the people work can be assigned to') and immediately scopes the result set to two concrete populations: instance members and external contacts visible to the key owner. The parenthetical field lists (e-mail, display name, role) make the output distinguishable from the other list_* siblings, which cover calendars, maps, pages, and rules.

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?

It gives clear downstream context: call this to obtain e-mails that are then used as `owner` in create_map/add_nodes/update_node and in set_owner rules, and warns that an unknown e-mail is rejected. That effectively tells the agent to consult this tool before assigning ownership. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming an alternative lookup path, so it is not a full 5.

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