list_project_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It indicates a read operation ('List') but does not describe the return structure, pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is too brief to be transparent.

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 at five words, but conciseness at the expense of substance is not ideal. While there is no wasted text, the description lacks critical information such as parameter details and behavioral traits. It achieves brevity but fails to be informative.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description should provide enough context for the agent to use it correctly. However, it omits the parameter, output format, and usage context, leaving significant gaps in completeness.

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 schema has one parameter (projectId) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's type definition. The agent receives no guidance on the parameter's role or expected value.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('users in a project'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_project_user' (single user) and 'add_project_user' (add operation), though it could be more explicit about listing all 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_user' or 'add_project_user'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or use cases, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the name.

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