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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the output contents: all workspace members, their roles, names, and password-set status. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, pagination, error behavior, or whether the results are sorted or filtered.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key scope ('Everyone in the workspace') and then enumerates the useful output attributes. Every element contributes to understanding the tool.

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 is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some gaps: no explicit statement that this is a read-only operation, no guidance on the optional workspace parameter, and no mention of behavior like requiring membership. Because there is no output schema, the field list in the description helps, but broader usage and edge-case context are missing.

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% for the single optional workspace parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description adds minimal parameter-related value; it only implies the workspace context by saying 'in the workspace.' This matches the baseline for high 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 defines the resource as all workspace members and specifies the returned fields (role, name, password set), which makes the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list', but the tool name and the enumeration phrasing convey the read operation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, though the name already distinguishes it from users_add and users_invite.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as whoami, users_add, or users_remove. It also does not explain when to pass the optional workspace parameter, even though the schema hints that whoami lists available workspaces. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and phrasing.

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