treeflow_list_users

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It transparently indicates this is a read/list operation and states what is returned (users with roles and statuses). It does not mention response format or any required permissions, but for a zero-parameter list tool the disclosed scope is reasonably complete.

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 well-structured sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then adds the useful detail about roles and statuses. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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, no-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the resource scope and the returned attributes. It could be slightly more explicit about response shape or read-only guarantees, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the agent to resolve. The description provides the relevant output context by mentioning roles and statuses, satisfying the baseline for tools without parameters.

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 a specific action ('Lista') and resource ('todos los usuarios miembros del workspace actual'), and it specifies the included data ('roles y estados'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like create_user or update_user, since its purpose is enumeration rather than mutation.

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving the list of workspace users, which gives a clear context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., create_user or update_user for modifying users). The usage guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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