get_metabase_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the return type ('Dict[str, Any]: User metadata including id, email, groups, etc.'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or includes deactivated users. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by return information. Both sentences add value: the first states what the tool does, the second clarifies the return format. No wasted words or redundant information, though it could be slightly more comprehensive given the behavioral gaps.

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?

Given that this is a read operation with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should provide more context about when to use this versus sibling tools and address authentication/behavioral concerns that aren't covered by annotations.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of users in Metabase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_metabase_current_user' or 'get_metabase_groups' - it just says 'users' without clarifying scope or relationship to other user/group retrieval tools.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve user/group information (get_metabase_current_user, get_metabase_groups), the description offers no context about whether this retrieves all users, active users, or how it differs from the other user-related tools. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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