infomaniak_list_drive_users

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

Adds value beyond annotations by noting the 'Manager-private' nature, which indicates a privilege requirement. Does not contradict readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, or openWorldHint.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the action, second adds context and usage hint. No wasted words, effectively front-loaded.

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?

Given the simple interface (one required parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It could mention error cases or explain 'Manager-private' more explicitly, but overall it provides enough context for an AI agent.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'a kDrive' to imply the required drive_id parameter, but does not explain the parameter's format, constraints, or example values.

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 action ('List the users with access to a kDrive'), identifies a specific use case ('access audits'), and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on users rather than files or other resources.

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?

Provides a clear context for when to use the tool ('access audits') and hints at access restrictions ('Manager-private'), but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like infomaniak_get_drive_full, which might also provide user information.

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