List system-user metadata without passwords

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The only behavioral claim, 'without passwords', is a near-literal restatement of the title and is the sole hint at return content; there is no discussion of scoping, pagination, or what metadata fields come back.

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?

It is a single short clause with zero wasted words, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline. There is no structure beyond the fragment itself, and it duplicates the title verbatim.

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 read-only listing with no output schema, the description is too thin: it never says that results are scoped per cluster, how namespace filtering works, or whether the listing is paginated. The annotations do carry the safety burden, which keeps this from being inadequate, but a caller would still be guessing about scope.

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% for the properties, and the description does not explain the required `cluster` parameter or whether `namespace` acts as an optional filter. The agent gets no help beyond the raw pattern constraints in the schema, which say nothing about semantics.

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 exclusions, and no named alternative among the many user-list siblings. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name that this is the platform's own account listing rather than a per-backend user listing.

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