get_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about the return shape, whether users from the whole workspace or only direct collaborators are included, or any permission requirements.

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 tight sentence with no waste, and the resource scope is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the complexity of the concept, but structurally efficient.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys what is fetched and by which board. It omits return-format and scope details that would matter given the presence of the overlapping get_collaborators sibling.

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?

Only one parameter (board_name) and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining it refers to a configured board and points to list_boards. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 specific verb (Get) and resource (users with access to the board), so the reader knows exactly what is returned. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling get_collaborators, which appears to cover a similar 'who has access' concept, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 such as get_collaborators or get_board. The only hint of usage is the schema's reference to list_boards, which comes from the parameter description, not the tool description.

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