Get users

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only boilerplate about a response wrapper and a generic ParameterError, and says nothing about pagination semantics despite page, per_page, total_pages, and max_pages parameters.

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 prose is a docstring boilerplate with 'Args: **kwargs', 'Returns:', and 'Raises:' sections. It is not front-loaded with the information an agent needs and the kwargs line spends words without conveying meaning.

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 32-parameter listing tool, the description leaves virtually every filter undocumented and does not mention pagination behavior or default result size. It does state that the response wraps User models, which is a small help given there is no output schema, but it is far from complete.

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% across 32 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It only mentions **kwargs with 'per_page, page' as examples, leaving filters like name, username, email, active, blocked, humans, external, and two_factor completely unexplained.

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 says 'Get information about users,' which is a recognizable verb+resource but reads close to a restatement of the title 'Get users.' It never clarifies that this is a list/search endpoint or how it differs from the sibling gitlab_get_user, so an agent cannot tell the two apart without opening the schema.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus gitlab_get_user, gitlab_create_user, or generic api_request. There is no mention of prerequisites such as admin scope, nor of when to filter by username/email instead of user_id.

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