clio_list_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the current user is included in results, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention other behavioral aspects like response format, ordering, or permission requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes a helpful parenthetical. No wasted words.

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 list tool, the description covers the main purpose and a notable behavioral trait (includes current user). It doesn't describe the output format or the limit parameter, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema providing constraints, it is reasonably 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?

The schema has one parameter (limit) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name and constraints.

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 'List firm users' with a specific verb and resource, and provides additional context indicating the use case ('for assigning tasks/activities'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which list users.

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 when to use this tool by stating 'for assigning tasks/activities', giving clear context. No alternative user-listing tool exists among siblings, so no explicit exclusion is needed, though it doesn't state when not to use it.

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