list_space_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the read can be widened to inherited/inactive members; it says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape beyond what annotations and the output schema supply.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.

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 9-parameter tool with nested objects, cursor-based pagination, and a high-risk offset model, one sentence is insufficient. The output schema does relieve the description of explaining return values, but usage routing and most parameter meaning are absent.

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 33% schema coverage across 9 parameters, the description only gestures at two flags (include_inherited_access, inactive). It says nothing about limit, offset, detail, or the pagination parameters (text_offsets, section_offsets, previous_page) that carry the most invocation risk.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Read users of a space' — and scopes it beyond the sibling list_users by tying it to a space. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from list_users or list_card_members, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

It states that inherited access and inactive members are optional inclusions, which hints at capability, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative list_users tool for global user listings.

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