redmine_get_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation and 'finding user IDs' hints at the return content, but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or any other behavioral traits beyond the schema's mention of partial matching.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded action and a useful application note. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and use.

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 tool is simple with only two parameters, and the schema covers them well. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the structure of the returned user objects or how the limit affects results. The existence of a similar sibling tool also remains unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'name' parameter's purpose but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and it does not mention the 'limit' parameter.

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 searches for Redmine users by name, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'redmine_find_user', which appears to serve a similar purpose.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('when assigning issues or @mentioning colleagues'), but does not mention when not to use it or any alternatives. The presence of 'redmine_find_user' as a sibling makes this omission noticeable.

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