ftrack_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 of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention the default exclusion of inactive users, pagination via the limit parameter, or any permission requirements. The phrase 'all users' contradicts the schema's default for include_inactive, which is a notable gap.

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 just three words ('List all users') with zero wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 is under-specified. It doesn't explain the default active-only behavior, what fields are returned, or when to prefer this over ftrack_query. The 'all users' wording could mislead an agent into expecting inactive users by default.

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% for both parameters (limit and include_inactive), so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('users'), distinguishing it from other list tools like ftrack_list_projects and ftrack_list_tasks. However, the word 'all' is misleading because the include_inactive parameter defaults to false, meaning it lists only active users by default.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ftrack_query or ftrack_search. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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