query_assignable

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'List users assignable for a project' but does not mention output format, pagination, permissions needed, or whether the list includes only available users or all potential assignees. This leaves significant ambiguity for a read operation.

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 at 5 words, with no filler. However, it sacrifices some completeness for brevity. For such a simple tool, this level of conciseness is acceptable but could be slightly more informative without losing efficiency.

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's simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to clarify what 'assignable' means in the project context. It does not connect to related tools like assign_ticket, leaving the agent without full context to understand the tool's use case.

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% and the schema description of project_key is clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: listing assignable users for a project. It uses a specific verb (List) and resource (users assignable for a project), and is distinct from sibling tools which focus on ticket operations rather than user queries.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any indication of prerequisites, context for when it is appropriate, or exclusions. The agent has no basis to decide between this and similar tools like assign_ticket.

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