jira_list_users

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

The description discloses routing through an API endpoint and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company). However, it fails to state whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns all users or paginated results, or any rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides only partial transparency.

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 brief, consisting of three short sentences. It is easy to parse and front-loads the operation identity. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose, usage, and arguments) and the routing detail may be unnecessary for selection.

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?

Although an output schema exists (mitigating need for return value details), the description omits critical context: whether the user list is global or scoped, pagination behavior, and typical response structure. This is a significant gap for a list operation that an agent needs to interpret and handle correctly.

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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name and schema type, leaving the agent without clues about valid argument keys or structure.

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 verb-resource: 'list_users' from Jira connector. It identifies the operation and platform tool name. However, it does not differentiate this list users operation from similar tools in other systems (e.g., clio_list_users, slack_list_users), and it omits any Jira-specific scope or filtering details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided in favor of other Jira search tools.

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