superops_technicians_list

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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and filter capability, omitting important behaviors like pagination (though 'cursor' is in the schema) and the default 'activeOnly=true' behavior. This could lead an agent to assume unfiltered results when the default is active-only.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the filter capability in a second short sentence. 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 description covers the core purpose but is incomplete given the absence of an output schema and annotations. It does not mention pagination behavior, default values, or return format. While the schema documents parameters, the description fails to provide context about the results (e.g., that it returns a list of technician objects) and how to handle pagination.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it merely paraphrases the activeOnly and teamId filters. It does not clarify parameter formats or relationships, but this is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List technicians (agents) in SuperOps.ai.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('technicians'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like superops_technicians_get (single fetch) and superops_technicians_groups (groups). The mention of filtering by active status or team further clarifies scope.

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 usage for listing technicians but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, and does not name sibling tools. The filter note hints at use cases but does not exclude scenarios where other tools are more appropriate.

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