get_presence_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the read-only nature ('List') and the real-time aspect ('currently connected'), but it does not disclose what happens for invalid channels, whether pagination exists, or what the response structure is. This is minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key constraint. It contains no filler and 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does not specify return format or error conditions. It provides enough to understand the core function but lacks details needed for robust invocation, such as response shape or edge-case behavior. For a simple single-parameter tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 documentation for the single 'channel' parameter includes a description, pattern, and length constraints, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description only repeats the prefix requirement without adding further parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'users currently connected to a presence channel', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like list_channels and get_channel_info. The constraint 'Only works with channels that start with "presence-"' further sharpens the 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 provides a clear precondition (presence- prefix) and implies the use case of retrieving current users of a presence channel. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool beyond the prefix constraint, resulting in a clear but not fully explicit guidance.

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