get_users

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature with '[READ]' and explicitly states that password hashes are not returned. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements or scope of users returned.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose, second defines the parameter. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key constraints (read-only, no password hashes).

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 1-parameter read tool, the description is mostly adequate. It explains purpose and parameter meaning. Minor gaps: no mention of return format or pagination, but these are less critical for a simple tool.

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 has 0% description coverage for the target parameter. The description adds 'Device name from config', which clarifies what the parameter represents. However, it does not specify format, default behavior, or if null means all devices.

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 reads local users and privilege levels, explicitly notes that password hashes are not returned, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bgp_neighbors or get_interfaces which cover different network data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about filtering (e.g., what happens when target is null or omitted). The description is minimal.

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