alga_users_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that results are paged one at a time, but says nothing about default page size, ordering behavior, or what happens when page exceeds the result set — and no output schema clarifies the return envelope.

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 short sentences with the resource stated first and the pagination constraint immediately after — no filler or redundancy. The brevity is efficient, though it leaves the terseness to be penalized under parameter and contextual completeness rather than here.

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 six-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the two filter knobs but omits sorting semantics, the 25/100 limit behavior, and any indication of what the response contains (items plus pagination metadata). Adequate to call the tool, not sufficient to call it well on the first try.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only touches three of six parameters loosely (page via "one page at a time", search, is_inactive). sort, order, and limit receive no meaning beyond their names, and it never says which user fields search actually matches against (username, email, name).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List users") plus the pagination model ("one page at a time"), which distinguishes it from the singular alga_users_get sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling or any search-list alternative, so the differentiation is implied by wording rather than stated.

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?

"Use to browse or filter by search or inactive state" gives a usage context, but it largely restates the search and is_inactive parameters. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of when to call alga_users_get instead, and no note on how exhaustive browsing should page through results.

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