infomaniak_list_public_cloud_project_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, permission requirements, or return details. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence ('List users with access to a Public Cloud project.') with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

With an output schema present and strong annotations, the minimal description is somewhat adequate. However, it lacks guidance on parameter disambiguation and differentiation from similar list/manage tools, leaving moderate gaps for a tool with such a rich sibling context.

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 only says 'Public Cloud project' and does not explain the roles of project_id vs public_cloud_id, leaving the two integer parameters ambiguous.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'users with access to a Public Cloud project'. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like list_public_cloud_projects and manage_public_cloud_project_user.

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 implies when to use the tool (to see users with access to a project) but provides no explicit guidance about alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. It does not mention sibling tools such as list_public_cloud_accesses.

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