yougile_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the company-wide scope and filter options, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior or return format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds marginal behavioral context, similar to the get_calls calibration example.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word adds value: 'List all users (employees) in the company' and 'Can filter by email or projectId.' Extremely concise and well-structured.

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, annotations (read-only safe), and 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It states the core action and available filters. It doesn't explicitly mention pagination defaults, but the schema includes limit/offset with descriptions. For a list tool, this is adequately complete.

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 describes all four parameters ('email', 'limit', 'offset', 'projectId'). The description mentions filtering by 'email or projectId', which is redundant with the schema. No additional semantics or examples are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'List all users (employees) in the company.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users'), and the scope ('in the company') distinguishes it from sibling tools like yougile_get_user (single user) and yougile_delete_user.

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 clear context for use: it lists all users and supports filtering by email or projectId. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the tool's purpose as a list endpoint is evident. Sibling tools like get_user or delete_user are obviously different.

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