rm_list_project_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the project scope and does not contradict the annotations.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The phrase 'associated with or assigned to' could be more precise, but overall it is appropriately sized and structured.

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 straightforward and the presence of an output schema plus read-only annotations reduces the need to describe return values and safety. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance leave notable gaps. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It only reinforces that project_id scopes the query; it never explains page/per_page pagination behavior, accepted formats, or defaults. The property names are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal parameter-level value.

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 states a clear action ('List') and resource ('users... for a specific project'), making the core function unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling rm_list_users by project scoping, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_list_users or rm_get_user. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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