ghl_get_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists all team members, without mentioning pagination behavior (despite skip/limit parameters), response format, potential size issues, or any access requirements. While it's a read operation, the description provides minimal transparency beyond the tool's name and schema.

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 verb and resource immediately. There is no wasted text or redundancy. It is concise and to the point.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema. The description is minimal but adequate for the core purpose. However, it does not specify the return structure, pagination details, or clarify the relationship with sibling user tools. Given no annotations and no output schema, slightly more context would improve completeness.

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 100% for both parameters (skip and limit), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters, such as how pagination works or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List all team members in the GHL location' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('team members'), and the scope ('all team members') distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_get_user (single user) and ghl_search_users (filtered search). It is clear and unambiguous.

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 this is for retrieving the full set of users in the location, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives like ghl_search_users (for filtered queries) or ghl_get_user (for a single user). No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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