list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description clarifies the data scope. However, it does not mention permissions, pagination, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and output without unnecessary words. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns: names, emails, roles. It does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., array), but 'List' strongly implies it. A small gap is the lack of detail about edge cases (e.g., empty course or invalid ID), but overall it is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100%: network_id is described as 'The Piazza network/course ID'. The description only restates 'Piazza course' without adding syntax, formatting, or usage details. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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'), the resource ('all users'), and the specific roles covered (students, instructors, TAs). It also lists the returned fields (names, emails, roles), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_courses or get_user_profile.

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—when you need a complete user roster for a Piazza course—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_user_profile or list_courses, only an implicit use case.

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