list_users

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

The description discloses the paginated return format with offset, limit, and hasMore. It implies a read-only operation. However, without annotations, it could be more explicit about being non-destructive.

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 extremely concise—one sentence plus the return type—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 simple list tool with well-documented parameters and a return structure in the description, the information is sufficient. It could mention pagination behavior or the optional projectId's default, but overall it is adequate.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets 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 clearly states the tool lists users in a project and specifies the return structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_projects, list_boards) by focusing on users.

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 implies usage for listing users but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. Since no other sibling tool lists users, differentiation is less critical, but guidance on context is missing.

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