list_project_users

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

Annotations already specify readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds only the raw HTTP route and says nothing about pagination, default sorting, returned fields, or permission requirements for listing project users.

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?

Two short sentences are front-loaded and waste no space. The core purpose appears first, with the endpoint as supporting detail.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for a simple list endpoint backed by annotations, but it omits return shape, pagination, and any distinction from similar list/get tools. With no output schema, it should do more to describe what a caller receives.

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?

The required project_id parameter has no schema description, and the description does not clarify its expected value beyond implying a project context. The sort and order parameters are covered only minimally by the schema enums, and the description does not explain defaults or behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get users linked to a project. The GET endpoint reinforces scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_project_user or list_users.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_project_user (single user lookup) or list_users (global listing). The tool name implies listing project members, but no explicit selection criteria are provided.

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