Get Project Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds value by detailing output structure (array of user objects with fields) and explaining access level IDs, which supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Efficient and front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidelines, then additional details. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero 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?

Given no output schema, description fully explains return format and fields. Also covers access level usage and prerequisites. Complete for a 2-parameter, well-annotated tool.

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% with good descriptions. The description reinforces access level values and clarifies project_id source (list_projects). Adds context beyond schema, but schema already does 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?

The description clearly states 'List all users with access to a specific MantisBT project', using specific verb (list), resource (users), and scope (specific project). It also distinguishes from sibling find_project_member by contrasting use cases.

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 states when to use (need complete user list) and when not (name-based lookup, prefer find_project_member). Also provides prerequisite: obtain project_id from list_projects.

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