twprojects-list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by mentioning scoping/filtering behavior. However, it does not disclose pagination limits, performance implications, or anything beyond what annotations provide. The bar is lowered by annotations, and the description adds moderate context.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose ('List users') and immediately follows with key options. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or fluff.

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 has 6 parameters, output schema, and pagination, the description covers only the core function. It omits guidance on pagination, search_term, and verbose parameter usage. However, with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces two key parameters (project_id, type) but does not add meaning to verbose, search_term, page, or page_size. While the schema descriptions are thorough, the tool description does not significantly augment them.

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 users' (specific verb+resource) and explicitly mentions two key dimensions: scope by project_id or filter by type. This differentiates it from other list tools in the sibling set, such as list_tasks or list_projects.

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 usage context (project scoping, type filtering) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like twdesk-list_users or other list tools. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are given.

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