List application database users without passwords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral note that password fields are omitted from the output, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether listing spans all namespaces by default.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, which is good. But its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification: it restates the title verbatim and provides no additional structure or detail.

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?

For a paginated, cluster/namespace-scoped listing tool with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out the information an agent needs to call it correctly — required scoping, pagination semantics, and how it differs from the numerous other user/role list tools.

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% and four parameters (cluster, namespace, limit, cursor) are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention any of them — it does not explain that cluster is required, that namespace narrows scope, or that limit/cursor drive pagination, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a cluster or namespace is required to scope results), and no pointer to database_user_get or the sibling user-list tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and title.

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