Inspect Micro app 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 a meaningful behavioral constraint about personal data and limited disclosure, plus the 'latest bounded' framing that sets expectations about data recency and completeness.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the privacy caveat is a necessary addition. Every clause contributes to the tool's effective use.

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?

With an output schema present, a single optional parameter, and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. The term 'bounded' is slightly unclear, and there is no connection to sibling user-management tools, but nothing needed to invoke the tool is missing.

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 the 'path' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage detail about the parameter, meriting the baseline score.

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 ('Read'), resource ('app-user metadata'), and scope ('latest bounded ... for the linked owner project'). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like micro_user_enable, micro_user_disable, and micro_user_sessions_revoke, which are clearly not read operations.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as micro_user_enable, micro_user_disable, or micro_members. The phrase 'for the linked owner project' indicates scope but does not help an agent choose among the many sibling tools.

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