Get Users For Workspace

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds value by stating return fields and pagination support, which are not fully captured by annotations. However, it could further disclose behavior like default limit or empty-workspace handling, but the existing context is adequate.

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?

Three concise sentences: the first states the action, the second describes returns, and the third gives usage guidance and pagination note. Every sentence contributes unique information, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (gid, name, email) and usage context. It covers the main purpose, pagination, and a practical use case, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions for limit and offset. It reinforces the workspace parameter's role but doesn't enrich semantics significantly.

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 lists all users in a workspace, with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from the singular asana_get_user by emphasizing 'all users' and the workspace scope. It also specifies return fields (gid, name, email), making the 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 a clear use case: 'Use this to find a user's GID before assigning tasks or filtering by assignee.' It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over similar ones like asana_typeahead or asana_get_user.

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