Find Project Member

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the caching behavior (local metadata cache when fresh, live API fallback) and the result-count bound, which is genuinely useful context for an agent reasoning about latency and freshness.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then result bounds and matching semantics, then data-source behavior. Slight redundancy with the schema's own parameter descriptions keeps it from being maximally tight.

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?

For a low-complexity, 3-parameter read tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, matching rules, result limits and cache behavior. Only the relationship to the similar get_project_users sibling is unaddressed.

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 100%, so limit, query and project_id are already fully documented by the schema. The description largely restates those semantics (limit default/max, case-insensitive substring matching) rather than adding new meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource -- search for users with access to a MantisBT project -- plus the three matchable fields (name, real_name, email). The search-by-attribute framing differentiates it from the bulk listing sibling get_project_users even though that sibling is not named.

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?

Provides operational guidance ('omit query to list the first limit users'), which tells the agent one valid mode of use. However, it never states when to prefer this over the closely related get_project_users, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, so the when-to-use reasoning is left implicit.

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