List 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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'optional pagination', which the schema already conveys via index/nValues, and discloses nothing about auth requirements or return behavior.

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, and the resource is stated before the modifier. It is efficient, though almost too terse to carry much information.

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 read-only, six-parameter list operation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It stops short of describing the returned user objects or default sort behavior, which an agent might reasonably want.

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%, so all six parameters are already documented (role filter, index, nValues, sortColumn, sortDirection, collId). The description's mention of pagination adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a clear verb (List) and resource (users of a collection) plus scope. However, it does not distinguish itself from very similar siblings such as transkribus_coll_user_get_list, transkribus_coll_user_count, or transkribus_coll_user_stats, so an agent cannot route confidently between them from the description alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like coll_user_get_list or coll_user_count, and no prerequisites (e.g., required role/permission to see collection users) are mentioned. Only the phrase 'optional pagination' hints at usage.

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