Get org user mini details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the one thing annotations can't: that the payload is trimmed to id/name/email, which is valuable output-shaping context. It omits org scoping enforcement and any pagination/limit behavior.

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?

A single compact clause with no filler, and the key qualifier (minimal fields) sits before the use case. Slightly terse for the amount of undocumented surface it covers.

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 read-only list tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description covers what the tool returns and roughly why. It leaves the required org_id and the three opaque wrapper parameters entirely unexplained, which is a real gap given 0% schema coverage and no output schema.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description never mentions org_id (the only required parameter) or explains the generic form/params/json_body wrapper fields. With zero schema help, the description needs to compensate and does not.

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?

A specific verb (List) plus resource (org members) and explicit field scope (id/name/email), which separates it from the heavier member-listing siblings such as vaultwarden_get_members. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"for UI pickers" implies a use case (lightweight display data) but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. An agent must infer that vaultwarden_get_members is the choice when full member records are needed.

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