list_users

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention potential pagination, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. For a read-only operation, the absence of such details limits the agent's ability to anticipate behavior. The description only states the action without any caveats.

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, short sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise.

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 description is minimal, which is adequate for a simple list tool with no parameters. However, it omits context such as whether the list is exhaustive, if there are scope limitations (e.g., only active users), or the format of the output. Given the presence of an output schema, the description could be slightly more complete by noting the scope or default ordering.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly implies that no inputs are needed. Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter information. A score of 4 reflects the absence of required parameter semantics.

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') and the resource ('all users in the organisation'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_contacts, list_projects, etc., which target different entities. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 alternative list tools. Given the large number of sibling list tools, the description should ideally indicate that this is the appropriate tool for user listing, and why not to use others. The lack of any usage context or exclusion criteria is a significant gap.

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