users_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation with pagination, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves gaps for an AI agent to invoke it correctly.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all Remnawave VPN users') and includes key operational detail ('with pagination') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and pagination, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, which could hinder an AI agent's ability to use it effectively in broader workflows.

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, with clear documentation for 'start' (offset) and 'size' (number of users). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'pagination', which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide additional semantics like default behavior or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all Remnawave VPN users'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'users_get', 'users_get_by_username', or 'subscriptions_list', which also retrieve user-related data but with different scopes or filters.

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 mentions 'with pagination', which implies usage for large datasets, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'users_get' (for single users) or 'subscriptions_list' (for subscription-focused data). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts with siblings.

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