list_project_users

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it is a read operation returning a dictionary of users, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or limitations. The return type is mentioned but not exhaustive for behavioral expectations.

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 and well-structured, starting with a clear one-line purpose, then standard Args/Returns sections. No unnecessary words, and information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (list users with optional sorting) and that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the main functionality. It could mention pagination or error handling, but for basic usage it is sufficient.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides explicit allowed values for 'sort' (name, username, email, or role) and 'order' (asc or desc), which is essential for correct usage. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it lists users linked to a project. The verb 'list' and resource 'users' are specific, but no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like add_project_user or remove_project_user. However, those are distinct operations, so purpose is clear enough.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context about when filtering or sorting might be needed. The description is purely functional.

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