openai_list_project_users

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals pagination behavior (after cursor, limit) and project scoping, but omits other traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether archived projects are included. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not rich.

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 concise and well-structured, starting with a one-sentence summary followed by a clean parameter list. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 tool's simplicity and the availability of an output schema, the description covers the core aspects: purpose, pagination parameters, and project context. It lacks usage guidance and access prerequisites, but overall it is reasonably complete for a straightforward list operation.

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 description explains all three parameters, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It defines 'after' as a pagination cursor from the previous response's 'last_id', which is non-obvious, and clarifies 'limit' as max users per page. The cross-reference to openai_list_projects for project_id is helpful and practical.

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 members of a project', specifying the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openai_get_project_user (for a single user) and openai_list_users (all users), by explicitly scoping to a project.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is the reference to openai_list_projects for obtaining project_id, but there is no discussion of cases where openai_get_project_user or other list tools would be more appropriate.

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