List subusers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, whether pagination or filtering applies, or what the response contains beyond the broad notion of listing users.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler text. It is appropriately concise, though very minimal; the score is 4 rather than 5 because it leaves essential context unaddressed.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic operation but omits return-value expectations, permission requirements, and any caveats. It is minimally adequate for an agent to invoke the tool, but not rich enough to predict what the result will contain.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters such as panel, baseUrl, clientKey, and applicationKey. The description adds only that these users are tied to a server, but does not clarify the required server parameter's accepted format or how the optional overrides interact with it. The baseline of 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 uses a clear verb ("List") and resource ("users with access to the server"), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling subuser_get tool or clarify that it returns all subusers rather than a single one, so it falls short of a 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus subuser_get, subuser_create, or other server-related list tools. The intent to enumerate subusers is only implied by the word "List"; no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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