ise_ers_list_adminuser

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'Paginated' which discloses that results come in pages, and the schema hints at page/size defaults. However, it doesn't disclose read-only safety, return format, what happens with many results, or whether this hits a live ISE deployment. For a list operation the read-only nature is implied by the verb, but the pagination behavior could be richer.

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 at two short phrases: 'List all Admin Users. Paginated.' No wasted words, and the pagination note is placed second for minor emphasis. However, it's arguably too sparse—it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as clarifying scope or output behavior.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves substantial gaps. It doesn't explain the response shape, whether listing all admin users has any scope/visibility constraints (e.g., only the current deployment), or how pagination parameters behave. The deployment parameter is documented in the schema, but page/size semantics are only implied. Sibling tools in the adminuser family (get, search) suggest a list-versus-lookup pattern, but the description doesn't guide this choice.

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 only 33% (only the deployment parameter has a description in the schema). The page and size parameters have no description. The description mentions 'Paginated' which implies page/size control, indirectly giving meaning to two of the three undocumented parameters. The deployment parameter's schema description is rich (name, slug, or number, with fallback behavior and pointer to ise_list_deployments). So the description plus schema partially compensate for the coverage gap.

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 Admin Users. Paginated." clearly states the verb (List) and resource (Admin Users). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like ise_ers_get_adminuser or ise_ers_search_adminuser, though the 'List' versus 'get'/'search' distinction is somewhat implicit in the name. The 'Paginated' note adds a small behavioral hint but doesn't clarify how pagination works or what makes this different from a search.

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. Within the adminuser family, siblings include get_adminuser and search_adminuser, but the description doesn't explain when a list is appropriate versus a search or get. The deployment parameter description in the schema offers some context about omitting it for the default deployment, but this is in the schema, not the description, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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