monday_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which implies authentication and scoping, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns paginated results, or what the typical response structure is. The actual behavior of listing users is not described beyond the name.

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 short (two paragraphs) and front-loads the operation name, but the routing and arguments sections could be more compact. The 'Args' line is redundant with the schema. It is not excessively verbose, but some sentences add little value (e.g., the routing detail is generic and likely applies to many tools).

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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description should at least hint at the output (e.g., 'Returns a list of users'). It does not. The description lacks completeness for an agent to confidently use the tool without additional context. The presence of an output schema does not excuse missing high-level behavioral description.

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 input schema has a single 'arguments' parameter (type string, default '{}') with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely restates 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying what keys or values are expected. It adds no meaningful guidance beyond the schema itself.

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 repeats the tool name 'list_users' and identifies it as a Monday connector operation, which is clear enough to convey the basic purpose. However, it does not specify what subset of users is returned (e.g., all users in the account, only active users) or distinguish from sibling tools like monday_list_teams. The name itself is unambiguous, but the description adds minimal differentiation.

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 other list tools (e.g., monday_list_boards, monday_list_items). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The description only states the operation name and routing details, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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