pve_list_users

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. 'List all users' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when no users exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it sacrifices helpful context for brevity.

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's simplicity (list operation with 2 optional parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more context.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('enabled' for filtering by status and 'full' for including group/token info). The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List all users' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('users'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'pve_get_user' (which likely retrieves a single user) or 'pve_list_groups' (which lists groups instead). The description lacks specificity about what 'all' means in this context.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'pve_get_user' for single-user retrieval or 'pve_list_groups' for different resource types. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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