Get Collection Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behaviour (index/nValues), result ordering, or whether the full list is always returned.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably under-specified rather than maximally efficient.

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?

This is a paged listing tool with six parameters and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the shape of the returned user list, pagination, or how the role filter interacts with results. For a tool of this complexity, the description leaves real gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% with 6 documented parameters, so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline is 3. The description does not clarify the role filter values, sorting semantics, or the -1 'all' convention, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the list of users with access to a collection'), which is immediately understood. However, it does not differentiate from the near-duplicate sibling transkribus_coll_user_list, nor from coll_user_count/coll_user_stats, so an agent has no basis from the description alone to pick this one.

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 indication of when to use this versus transkribus_coll_user_list or transkribus_coll_user_count, no prerequisites, no mention of permissions needed to view a collection's user list. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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