iam_users

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

The [READ][risk=low] tag is consistent with readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: empty results are expected on root-only deployments (not a failed probe), and the envelope reports truncation. It does not cover pagination mechanics, but the added edge-case disclosure goes meaningfully beyond the single annotation.

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 risk tag and resource summary are front-loaded, and the Args block is tight with two one-line entries. The empty-list paragraph is slightly verbose for its purpose but earns its place by preventing a false failure diagnosis.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers what is returned, both parameters, and the important empty-result caveat. Nothing critical is missing, though it does not say whether the list is paginated or how nested policy/group data is shaped.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: 'limit' is tied to truncation reporting and 'target' is tied to a config-named MinIO target with an explicit default-omit rule. Both parameters gain semantics absent from the schema, though no default value or type detail is restated.

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 names the resource (IAM users) and the payload fields returned — status, attached policies, group membership — so an agent knows this is a read of IAM user state. It never states a verb explicitly and does not distinguish itself from near siblings like iam_groups, iam_policies, or create_user/remove_user, but the resource is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as iam_groups or iam_policies. The root-credential note explains how to interpret an empty result, which is useful context but is correctness guidance, not selection guidance.

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