twprojects-list_users

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by mentioning scoping/filtering. However, it omits behavioral details like pagination, default behavior when project_id is omitted, and the effect of the verbose parameter, which are only in the 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the core function and key filters, but it does not mention pagination, search_term, or verbose options. With 6 parameters and an output schema, a bit more detail 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?

All 6 parameters have complete schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description's mention of only project_id and type adds marginal value. It highlights key filters but does not enhance understanding 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 'List users' and distinguishes this from other list tools by mentioning scoping via project_id and filtering by type. This differentiates it from siblings like twprojects-list_companies or twprojects-get_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 provides some context (scope by project_id, filter by type) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like twdesk-list_users or twprojects-get_user. No 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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