get_presence_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation ("currently connected") and discloses the presence-channel naming constraint, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, whether the list can be large, or how stale/disconnected members are handled. That leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately following. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential scoping rule an agent needs to call it correctly. Only minor behavioral detail (auth, result size/ordering) is absent, which is tolerable at this complexity.

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% and the single required parameter 'channel' is already fully documented in the schema, including the starts_with pattern and length bounds. The description only restates the 'presence-' prefix rule, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ("List") and resource ("all users currently connected to a presence channel"), which is clearly separable from siblings like list_channels (which lists channels, not users) and terminate_user_connections. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

It states one real precondition — the channel must start with 'presence-' — which tells the agent when the tool is applicable. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_channel_info or terminate_user_connections, and no indication of what happens if the precondition is violated (error vs empty result). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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