list_coworkers

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. The description only states the topic and does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies data, or has any other behavioral implications. No such information is given.

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 extremely concise, composed of a single short phrase. It wastes no words and is easy to parse. While it could be slightly more structured with a verb, the brevity aligns with the goal of super-tools.

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 the simplicity of the tool (4 parameters, output schema present), the description is minimal. It does not explain the output structure beyond the schema, nor does it provide practical context such as when to use pagination or how to interpret results. The description is too sparse to be considered complete from a usage standpoint.

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 provides descriptions for all four parameters (account_id, page, count, raw), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The parameter descriptions themselves are clear enough.

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 'Employees/recruiters of the account' clearly identifies the resource (employees/recruiters) and the scope (an account). It effectively conveys the purpose of listing coworkers, though it lacks an explicit verb. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like list_accounts or list_vacancies.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool, nor does it contrast with alternatives such as list_accounts or search_applicants. It offers no context about pagination, filtering, or typical use cases.

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