glpi_search_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that pagination and filtering are supported, which are key behaviors. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or any authentication/rate-limit constraints. The word 'search' implies read-only, but this is implicit, not explicit.

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 description is a single, short, front-loaded sentence. It immediately conveys the action and resource, then adds the pagination/filter capability. There is zero fluff or redundant information (the parenthetical '(Users)' is minor but not harmful).

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 simple search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: it searches users, supports pagination, and allows filters. It does not describe return format, but that is largely implied by the tool's purpose. The absence of annotations is partly mitigated by the simple read-only nature implied by the description. Overall, it is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% – each parameter (limit, start, filter) has a description in the schema. The tool description only adds a high-level note about pagination and filters, which restates the schema fields without adding deeper semantics such as defaults, data types, or filter syntax details beyond the example. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool 'searches and lists users' (Busca e lista usuários), with a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like glpi_search_tickets or glpi_list_computers, which target different entities. The mention of pagination and filters further clarifies the scope.

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?

The usage is implied by the resource name 'users' – an agent would use this when searching for users, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. It does not say 'for tickets use glpi_search_tickets' or similar, so guidance is only minimal.

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