Get Job Authorized Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the action, such as what constitutes a 'job implementation' or output structure, but does not contradict 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?

A single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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 full annotation coverage, the description is adequate. It could be enhanced by noting admin-only access or the return format (e.g., list of user details), but the core functionality is clear.

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 coverage is 100% and already describes the 'jobImpl' parameter as 'Job implementation identifier'. The description adds no new meaning beyond implying it identifies the job for which users are listed.

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 authorized to run a specific job implementation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like transkribus_admin_authorize_users_for_job and transkribus_user_get_job_acl.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_user_get_job_acl or transkribus_user_is_allowed_for_job. The description does not mention prerequisites like admin privileges or suggest complementary tools.

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