get_users

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavior: global fetch may be forbidden for non-admin accounts, and it falls back to merging users across projects. This adds meaningful context about permissions and fallback, which annotations don't convey.

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 sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the fallback scenario. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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 read-only tool with only two optional parameters and rich annotations, the description fully covers purpose, scope, and fallback edge cases. No output schema exists, but the tool's behavior and expected results are clear from the description.

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 already provides full descriptions for both parameters (project_id and fallback_all_projects) with 100% coverage. The description adds context about merging behavior, but it doesn't add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already states.

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 the tool gets active users from TestRail, with specific scope (globally or per-project). It distinguishes from siblings, which all deal with tests, cases, sections, or runs rather than users.

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 explains when to use the tool (to retrieve active users globally or per-project) and describes the fallback behavior for non-admin accounts. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so this is clear enough.

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