list_ticket_assignees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond that: the scope is current organization members only, invited users are excluded, and nothing beyond name and ID is ever returned.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the first clause, then layers scope, provenance, exclusion, and return shape — each sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains the return shape (userId and fullName, matching ticket author/assignee fields) alongside scope and exclusions. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so projectId's format and origin (from list_projects) are already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline, which is correct here.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('people a ticket in this project can be assigned to'), then qualifies the set as organization members. It distinguishes itself from siblings by declaring it is the source of assigneeUserId for create_ticket and update_ticket.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative source path and the exclusion: this is where assigneeUserId comes from on create_ticket and update_ticket, and an ID from anywhere else is refused. It also states the negative case — invited-but-not-joined users are absent because they cannot be assigned.

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