List Project Inactive Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying pagination behavior, metadata inclusion, and a link to filtering documentation. No contradictions found.

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 four well-structured sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a documentation link. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination, required parameters, and a documentation link. It does not detail the returned Directory record fields, but the context signals and sibling tools suggest this is sufficient for an AI agent.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description mentions pagination parameters and required project_id but does not explain 'sort' or add new meaning beyond the schema. Adequate but not exceptional.

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 the verb ('Return'), resource ('all Inactive Users'), and scope ('associated with a Project'), and mentions pagination and filtering. It is specific and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_company_inactive_users'.

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 explicit use cases: 'enumerate Directory records when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not, however, mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternative tools, which would have warranted a 5.

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