asana_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Paginated', which is a real behavioral trait, but this is also inferable from the limit/max_pages parameters. There is no mention of default workspace behavior or edge cases, so the description provides only modest value beyond the 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 remarkably concise and front-loaded, delivering the core purpose in the first phrase and then adding a useful resolution note and pagination flag. There is no redundant or filler content, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough key detail: it identifies the resource (workspace members) and the intended outcome (name-to-GID mapping), and mentions pagination. Still, it does not specify the exact shape of returned items (e.g., containing 'gid' and 'name') or clarify the behavior when no workspace is provided, leaving some reliance on the parameter descriptions.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% schema coverage. The description itself says nothing about individual parameters or how they affect the list. Because the schema handles parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the specific operation: 'List workspace members', and adds a parenthetical about 'name → GID resolution', which clarifies the main use case. It clearly targets the list aspect and distinguishes from a single-user retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast with 'get' tools.

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 the tool should be used when you need to map user names to GIDs, and its plural nature suggests bulk listing. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose an alternative like asana_get_user for a single user, nor any exclusions. Usage context is therefore only implied.

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