get_project_users

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a list, but does not mention required parameters (projectId vs projectKey), error handling, authentication needs, or response structure. For a read operation, minimal disclosure may be acceptable, but the lack of parameter-requirement clarity is a notable gap.

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 sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and result. It contains zero redundant information and is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple list-retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not clarify whether both parameters are required or how to choose between them, nor does it describe the return value structure. Given the absence of an output schema, slightly 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 100% coverage with both parameters having descriptive text and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of users') with a clear scope qualifier ('in a specific project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_users (all users) and get_project (project details). The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 implies usage context (project-scoped user retrieval) but does not explicitly state when to use this versus get_users or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the decision partially to inference.

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