Get users json

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is JSON destined for an admin table; it says nothing about pagination, auth prerequisites, or response shape. Some added context, but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with the resource and format immediately clear, followed by a usage qualifier. No waste, though it is perhaps too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what the JSON admin payload contains, the description is insufficient for an agent to call this correctly. Annotations cover safety but leave the parameter and return gaps unaddressed.

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?

Three parameters (form, params, json_body) exist at 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers no guidance on any of them. For a tool whose structured schema is entirely undocumented, the description does nothing to compensate, making the parameters effectively opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all instance users'), and adds a format/scope qualifier ('JSON, for the admin table'). This distinguishes it from the singular vaultwarden_get_user_json and the org-scoped vaultwarden_get_members. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, so not a full 5.

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?

'for the admin table' hints at intended context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives such as vaultwarden_get_members or vaultwarden_get_user_json. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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