List MySQL application users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — no mention of scope (cluster-wide vs namespace-scoped), whether results include system users, or whether the list is paginated.

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 sentence is tight and front-loaded with the verb, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes from omitting information, not from economy of expression.

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 two-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what is listed and how cluster/namespace scope the results. Neither is addressed, so an agent cannot confidently predict the response shape or the effect of omitting 'namespace'.

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%: 'cluster' has no description at all, and 'namespace' only inherits documentation from the $defs reference. The description does not compensate — it says nothing about what 'cluster' identifies or that 'namespace' optionally narrows the listing to a single project namespace.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus mysql_user_get, database_users_list, or the equivalent users_list tools for other backends. The agent must infer that this is the MySQL-specific enumerator 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.