Contract Testing: Admin List Team Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the team-scope context but does not provide additional behavioral details beyond what annotations cover.

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?

Description is very concise with two sentences and a parameter list. The 'Toolset: Admin' line is slightly redundant but does not detract significantly. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 one parameter, the description fully covers purpose, required input, and safety profile (via annotations). No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% and the description reiterates the same parameter info as the schema ('teamId UUID of the team'). No additional semantic meaning is added 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?

Description clearly states 'List all users in a specific team (admin)'. It specifies the verb (list), resource (users), and scope (specific team). Distinguishes from sibling tools like contract-testing_admin_list_users (list all users) and contract-testing_admin_get_team_user (single user).

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 when to use (list users in a team) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. Given sibling tools exist for broader or narrower queries, some implicit context is present but not formalized.

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