list_people

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. 'List all' implies a read-only enumeration scoped to the entire account, which is useful context, but it says nothing about pagination, result caps, or whether it is safe/non-mutating — expected for a lister but not disclosed.

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?

A single eight-word sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, nothing extraneous to trim.

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 enumeration with no output schema or nested objects, the description covers the essential scope. The only meaningful omission is enumerating return shape or pagination expectations, a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 per the rubric this is a baseline 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies no filtering input is required.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List all people in the Basecamp 2 account.' An agent immediately knows this returns people records. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling get_person (single-person retrieval), though the verb 'list' vs 'get' makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_person or list_projects. There are no parameters or filters to explain, but the description also does not state whether this is the entry point for enumerating users before calling get_person.

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