vibo_list_event_users

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact return shape when `usersType` is omitted ({hosts, guests, hostsCount, guestsCount}) and how pagination applies per group. This adds significant behavioral insight.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and immediately giving the key behavioral nuance. No unnecessary words, every clause earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the response for the merged case, but it leaves the `usersType` response shape somewhat underspecified (e.g., whether counts are included). Still, it covers the main use cases effectively.

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?

Although the schema is fully described (100% coverage), the description adds crucial semantics: `limit`/`skip` apply per group when `usersType` is omitted, and the response differs based on parameter presence. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states 'List the hosts and guests on an event' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes behavior based on `usersType`, making it unique among sibling tools like vibo_get_event and vibo_invite_users.

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 clear context on how to use the `usersType` parameter: omit it for merged groups, specify it for a single group. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the usage context is well-defined.

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