basecamp_list_pingable_people

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the filtering criterion (pingable/mentionable) and scope ('on this Basecamp account'), but fails to disclose return format, pagination, permissions, or any other behavioral traits. For a list operation, this is a minimal disclosure and leaves room for surprises.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word 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 tool is simple (zero parameters, no output schema), and the description does a reasonable job for such a tool. It specifies scope and meaning. However, it could add a brief note about what the response contains (e.g., list of names/IDs) to be fully complete. Still, given the simplicity, the gap is minor.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema requires no explanation. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate given there are no parameters to elaborate on.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all people who can be pinged (mentioned) on this Basecamp account'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like basecamp_list_people, which likely returns a broader set of people, and basecamp_get_person, which targets a single person.

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 implies the use case: you need the list of mentionable people on the account. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The phrasing 'can be pinged (mentioned)' signals its specific purpose without listing sibling tools.

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