list_workspace_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the basic function (listing users) and omits key behavioral traits such as whether results are paginated, required permissions, or error behavior when the workspace does not exist.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose. However, it lacks any structural elements (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could enhance readability, though for a simple tool this minimalism is acceptable.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description could afford to be brief. Nevertheless, it fails to cover necessary context such as the range of users returned (all users? only active?), link to the workspace, or any usage constraints, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.

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 input schema has one required parameter (workspace_id) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter. The description does not explain what workspace_id represents or how to obtain it, leaving the agent with no guidance beyond the schema.

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 action (list) and resource (users assigned to a workspace), which directly corresponds to the tool's name. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_workspaces or get_workspace, as no other sibling lists workspace 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, which is insufficient given the number of sibling tools (e.g., list_workspaces, get_screen_group_members) that could confuse an AI agent.

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