Contract Testing: Admin List Team Users

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the list operation, such as pagination behavior or admin permission requirements, which keeps this at a baseline score.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter list and toolset label add some organizational clarity, though the parameter bullets are redundant with the schema. Overall it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple listing operation with complete schema documentation, clear pagination parameters, and annotations covering the read-only/idempotent behavior. There is no output schema, so some return-format detail could be missing, but for a straightforward team-user list tool the description is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description simply repeats the parameter names, defaults, and requirements already present in the schema. It adds no additional meaning or format details beyond what the structured input definition provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a clear, specific verb and resource: 'List all users in a specific team (admin)'. This distinguishes it from the sibling admin_list_users, which would list users across teams, and from admin_get_team, which focuses on team details rather than membership.

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 clearly indicates the target scope: list users belonging to a specific team, and the required teamId parameter reinforces when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over the closest siblings.

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