List workspace users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that a successful roster return confirms credential and region configuration. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the primary action and filters, the second adds a practical secondary utility. No extraneous words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and high schema coverage, the description covers the main use case and adds a self-test context. It does not mention pagination behavior or response structure, but the schema details pagination parameters, and no output schema exists. Slightly lacking but still adequate.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with each parameter having a description. The description only mentions 'optional filters by email or name prefix', which adds little beyond the schema. With high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; no significant additional parameter insight is provided.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource ('Lists users...') and specifies the scope ('in the SpotDraft workspace'). The secondary connectivity self-test mention does not detract from the primary purpose. Among sibling tools, there is no other user-list tool, so it is well-distinguished.

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 explicitly recommends this tool as a connectivity self-test, providing a specific use case. It also states optional filters for searching. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention sibling alternatives, though no sibling covers the same functionality.

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