alertops_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies the scope ('all users') and the fields returned, which adds some context, but it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only. The word 'List' implies non-mutating behavior, but the description is not fully transparent.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the action and resource, the second adds valuable downstream context. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states the resource, the scope, the fields returned, and why the output matters for other tools. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; its mention of the returned usernames provides useful output context beyond the empty schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all users in the AlertOps account') and enumerates the returned fields. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that operate on alerts, groups, topics, integrations, and schedules.

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 explicitly states that usernames from this response are required by alertops_get_user_contact_methods and alertops_get_user_schedule, giving clear contextual guidance on when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but no alternative user-listing tool exists among the siblings.

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