check_active_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the returned format and that it returns only active users. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, definition of 'active' (e.g., real-time presence vs. last seen), or potential limitations like including/excluding bots. The example helps but more transparency is needed.

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 very concise: two brief Korean sentences and an English return format example. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded. No superfluous information.

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 has no parameters and an output schema is indicated, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the purpose, scope (workspace-wide), what is returned, and provides an example. However, it could mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., workspace not available) to be fully complete.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline is 3, and the description meets that by clearly stating what the tool returns without requiring any input.

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 the tool retrieves currently logged-in active users in the workspace ('워크스페이스에서 현재 로그인한 사용자 목록을 조회한다'). It also specifies that only active users among all users are returned, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_dms or fetch_messages that deal with messages and channels.

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 usage for retrieving active users but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No sibling tools serve the same purpose, so no contrasting guidance is provided. The description could be improved by noting that it is for presence information and may complement other user-related tools.

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