Contract Testing: Admin List Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the workspace scope; no rate limits, response shape, or pagination semantics are disclosed, but the annotation coverage keeps this at a baseline 3.

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 front-loaded with the action and scope, and the parameter list is clearly formatted. However, it redundantly repeats the schema's parameter descriptions, which takes up space without adding new information. Still compact and readable.

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?

For a simple paginated list tool with all parameters documented and safety annotations covering the read-only behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit information about response format or pagination behavior beyond defaults, but those are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% description coverage, and the description repeats those same parameter descriptions verbatim without adding extra meaning. The only slight addition is the userType label, but it is already present in the schema, so description adds no net value beyond the schema.

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 states a precise verb and resource: 'List all users in the workspace (admin).' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by scope ('workspace') and admin context, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 implies usage through its clear list operation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like admin_get_user or admin_list_team_users. No alternative conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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