superchat_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with them. It adds the important behavioral fact that pagination is manual and page-limited—'each call returns only one page'—which is not captured by the annotations alone. The note about using IDs when assigning conversations also provides practical downstream 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 three short sentences with the core operation front-loaded, followed by purpose and pagination guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema details or filler.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool, the description covers the operation, page-limited behavior, pagination continuation, and why the IDs matter downstream. The input schema supplies parameter defaults and constraints, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the after, before, and limit parameters each have detailed descriptions, including the constraint that before cannot be combined with after. The description restates the after/before pagination flow but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List one page of workspace users,' making the tool's scope immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling list/get tools by naming the workspace-users resource and emphasizing pagination. The downstream purpose ('Use their IDs when assigning conversations') adds useful context without blurring the operation.

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 gives clear pagination guidance: use after or before to continue from a previous page, and each call returns only one page. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as get_user for single-user lookups or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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