confluence_search_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches users using CQL and returns a JSON string, but it does not mention whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. The lack of such details makes it harder for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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 concise (one sentence plus structured argument docstring) with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the return type is mentioned but could be integrated more smoothly.

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 existence of an output schema (as indicated by context), the description does not need to detail return values, though it does briefly. The tool is relatively simple (search with two parameters), so the description is mostly adequate. However, without annotations, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% coverage, the description within the schema adds value by providing examples and notes on CQL quoting (e.g., for personal space keys). This extra semantic detail helps the agent construct correct queries, going beyond basic parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search Confluence users using CQL.' The verb 'Search' and resource 'Confluence users' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'confluence_search' tool by focusing on users, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'confluence_search'. The name and context provide some implicit differentiation, but there is no guidance on when to choose user search over content search, or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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