Listing users in a specific role

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds the required permissions ('view_users, assign_roles, manage_roles'), which is valuable behavioral context. No contradictions.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus permissions. It front-loads the primary action without any redundant or verbose text.

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 complexity (9 parameters, many siblings, existing output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose and permissions but could briefly mention pagination or filtering options. However, the output schema and parameter descriptions fill the 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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 action ('Listing users in a specific role') and the resource ('users in a role specified by its ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'action1_list_users' (which lists all users) by specifying the role context.

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 lists required permissions, which hints at authorization context, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'action1_get_role' or 'action1_list_users'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are stated.

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