list_auth_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 is a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination details (beyond implied by limit/offset), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool accessing user data.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that lists users from an authentication table. It misses details like return format (e.g., array of user objects), error handling, security implications, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a data-access tool with no structured support, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as default behaviors or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('users from the auth.users table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_auth_user' (which likely retrieves a single user), but the plural 'users' implies a listing operation versus retrieval of a specific user.

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 sibling tools like 'get_auth_user' for single-user retrieval or 'list_tables' for broader table listings, nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or database access.

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