everhour_list_team_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It says 'List' (implying read-only) and mentions 'selective property filtering', which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention pagination, data volume, authentication requirements, or default return behavior. It covers the basics but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences. The first front-loads the primary action and endpoint, the second explains the optional parameter. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. It could mention what fields are returned by default or note if the endpoint is paginated, but for a straightforward list operation the description is nearly complete.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'props' parameter, including a full list of allowed properties. The description adds the concept of 'selective property filtering', but no additional syntax or behavior beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 'List all team users' with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly names the '/team/users endpoint'. This distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like everhour_list_projects or everhour_list_tasks, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for listing team users, which is unique among siblings. It does not explicitly list when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the resource specificity is enough for most use cases. A slight deduction for missing explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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