ibmcloud_iam_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, require any permissions, or describe any side effects. It lacks details about pagination, error behavior, or response format. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for a fully transparent picture.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'List users in the account'. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 negligible complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient to convey the tool's function. However, it could mention the context that it lists IAM users (the name implies this) or clarify whether 'account' means the current IBM Cloud account. Minor missing context prevents a perfect score.

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 zero parameters, and the schema confirms this (input schema is an empty object). Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none to explain, which 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 'List users in the account' uses a specific verb (List), a resource (users), and a scope (in the account). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ibmcloud_iam_access_group_users (which lists users in a specific access group) and ibmcloud_iam_user_invite (which invites users). The scope 'in the account' adds clarity and differentiation.

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 does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this over related IAM tools, such as checking access group members or listing service IDs. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' language.

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