Get Collection Users

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

The description only repeats the basic purpose, adding no behavioral details beyond what annotations already convey (read-only, idempotent, etc.). It does not mention pagination, sorting behavior, or what information is returned about 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous 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?

Given the moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not describe the return format or pagination defaults, which would be helpful. The openWorldHint annotation somewhat mitigates this, but more detail would improve 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 input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a list of users with access to a collection, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of users'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'transkribus_coll_user_list', which likely has a similar purpose.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transkribus_coll_user_list' or 'transkribus_coll_user_count'. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.

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