users

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It indicates only read actions (list, get), implying non-destructive use. However, it does not detail authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 and front-loads the key purpose. It is concise, though the second sentence could be more tightly integrated. No unnecessary words, but minor redundancy.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format, making it less complete for an agent. Pagination parameters exist but are not contextualized. For a read-only tool with pagination, additional details about default page size or output structure 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond restating the action options. It meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 manages Datadog users and lists specific actions (list and get). It differentiates from siblings like 'auth' (authentication) and 'teams' (team management), though not explicitly stating alternatives. The verb 'Manage' is somewhat broad given only read actions are available, but the action list clarifies.

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 suggests use cases ('access management, user auditing, team organization') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'teams'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the use cases imply appropriate contexts.

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