canvas_list_account_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List users') but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), if it requires specific permissions, how results are paginated or limited, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('List users for an account') that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy (e.g., not restating the tool name 'canvas_list_account_users') and wastes no space on extraneous details, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 the tool's complexity (a list operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, permissions), output format, and usage guidelines. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't address these gaps, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results from this tool in 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 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'account_id' as ID of the account, 'order' as sort direction). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'search_term' and 'sort' work together) or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 ('List') and resource ('users for an account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'canvas_list_courses' or 'canvas_list_sub_accounts' by specifying it lists users rather than other account-related entities. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'canvas_get_user_profile' or 'canvas_get_user_grades', which are also user-focused but not list operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing account access), exclusions (e.g., not for listing users across multiple accounts), or comparisons to other user-related tools like 'canvas_get_user_profile' or 'canvas_list_courses' (which might include users). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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