list_schedule_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 a return type but no further behavioral details (e.g., error behavior, pagination, ordering). It is adequate but does not extend beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise (4 lines) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence is necessary; no wasted words.

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 simple list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, input, and output type. Minor omission: it could mention that the output is a list of user objects, but the output schema exists so the description is not required to detail it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely restates the parameter name as 'The ID of the schedule', adding no semantic richness beyond what the schema already shows (type string, required).

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 'List users in a schedule' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_users' (all users) and 'list_schedules' by specifying the schedule context.

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 usage context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_users' or 'list_team_members'. No alternative or exclusion is mentioned.

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