monday_list_users

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds only that routing is limited to the governed connector authority and that Spring verifies the effect must be read; it does not disclose output behavior, pagination, or argument effects. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 compact and well-structured as a short lead line followed by a parameter list. It avoids excess prose, though it could be improved by front-loading a plain-language purpose statement.

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?

The wrapper parameters and effect requirement are enumerated, and the output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not needed here. But the description never explains what the Monday list_users operation returns or what arguments it accepts, leaving an agent to guess at invocation details beyond the required 'read' effect.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by labeling all seven parameters (project_id, project_ref, connector_account_ref, idempotency_key, effect, approval_ref, arguments). However, the critical 'arguments' parameter is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which does not tell the agent what payload list_users expects.

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 identifies the operation as 'list_users' on the Monday connector and gives the platform tool path monday.list_users, making the target resource and action clear. It is somewhat reliant on the operation name rather than a plain-language statement of what it returns, but it still distinguishes the Monday user-list operation from the many sibling list tools.

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 on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as monday_query_data, monday_list_teams, or the other list_users tools. The only contextual line, 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' is a routing constraint, not a usage criterion or exclusion.

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