list_staff

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly implies the operation is read-only (via 'List'), states the fields returned, and explains the filter. However, it does not mention potential pagination, result limits, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a list tool but are not critical.

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 compact and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose and output fields, then gives a single line of usage context, followed by clean parameter explanations. No redundant or unnecessary sentences; every sentence earns its place.

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 essential usage context: purpose, parameters, and a downstream use case. Since an output schema exists (per context signals), the description need not explain return values in detail, though it already does. It does not address pagination or auth, but these are typically handled by the schema or platform conventions and are not critical for a simple list tool.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explicitly explains both parameters: school_id is sourced from list_schools and name_contains is a case-insensitive substring filter. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare type definitions in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a school's staff and admins'), and it enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it clearly from siblings like list_students, list_parents, and get_staff_member. The first sentence alone makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 concrete usage guidance: it tells the agent that the returned user_id should be used with add_class_staff, and it specifies the source of school_id (from list_schools). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with get_staff_member, though the 'list' vs. 'get' distinction is implied by the example.

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