List Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by stating that secrets (e.g., intercom_hmac) are never surfaced, a behavioral guarantee not captured by annotations. This enhances transparency without contradiction.

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 with zero wasted words. The main action is stated first, followed by a critical security note. It is optimally concise for the information provided.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no required ones, and an output schema exists. The description covers output content (name, email, roles) and a security constraint. However, it omits information about pagination (page, limit) and output_format, which are important for usage. With output schema present, the agent can infer return structure, but the description still misses pagination context.

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 compensate but does not. The parameters (page, limit, output_format) are not explained; the description only mentions output fields. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to use pagination or format controls, severely limiting parameter comprehension.

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 lists users and specifies included fields (name, email, RBAC roles). It also highlights that secrets are excluded, distinguishing it from potential leaks. Among siblings like list_organizations or list_devices, this is specific and 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?

The description implies usage for viewing organization users but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_user for a single user, or search-based tools). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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