List users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination behavior, default limits, or that all users are returned unless filters are applied. It is a minimal statement that aligns with annotations, with no contradictions.

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 a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 low complexity of the tool, the rich annotations, and complete parameter schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does. While it does not mention return format or filtering behavior, the schema and annotations cover these aspects adequately. It is complete for a simple, read-only list operation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptive text (e.g., 'Maximum number of users to return', 'Filter by role(s)'). The description itself does not mention parameters or add semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already provides adequate parameter information.

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: 'Get a list of team members (users) in your App Store Connect team'. It uses a specific verb ('Get a list'), identifies the resource ('team members (users)'), and provides context ('App Store Connect team'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-user-invitations' by referring to 'team members' rather than invited users, and from 'get-user' by implying a list operation.

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 the tool is for listing active team members but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks guidance on using filtering parameters or when to prefer this over related tools like 'list-user-invitations' or 'get-user'.

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