search_workspace_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: cache-first strategy, automatic caching of results, partial matching support, and the behavior when multiple matches are found. This goes beyond the basic schema information.

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 (~150 words) and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by caching info, use cases, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, caching, use cases, parameter meanings, and return format. It is complete for a search tool of moderate complexity.

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. It adds rich context for all three parameters: 'query' supports partial matches, 'workspace' defaults to the default workspace, and 'check_memory_first' controls caching behavior. This is highly informative.

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's purpose: 'Search for users in a BitBucket workspace by name.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (users), and scope (workspace), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_workspace_members' which lists all members without searching.

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 explicit use cases (adding reviewers, mentioning users, finding account IDs) and implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'list_workspace_members' for listing all users.

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