waroom_get_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It correctly indicates this is a read operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, authorization needs, or any side effects. The schema provides parameter details, but the description lacks higher-level behavioral context.

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 very concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds value by explaining a specific use case. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Despite simple inputs and no output schema, the description fails to describe the output structure (e.g., fields returned) or any ordering/filtering behavior. This is a significant gap for a get-list tool that agents need to use correctly.

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% with clear parameter descriptions in Japanese. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves the list of users in the organization and provides specific context about nickname usage for action item assignment. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools, none of which are user-list focused.

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 when to use it (to check nicknames for action item assignees) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. Since there are no directly competing sibling tools, this is adequate but could be more explicit.

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