roboshadow_list_organisation_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals that this is a read-only list operation, explicitly flags the data as PII-bearing, and discloses the admin-gating requirement. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. The primary operation and returned fields are front-loaded, and the sensitive/access warning is compactly appended without bloating the description.

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 simple single-parameter list operation, the description provides the key invocation context: the resource type, the returned fields, and the admin/PII sensitivity. It lacks explicit pagination or error behavior, but these are minor for this operation and the schema already covers the required parameter.

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 100%: the single parameter is fully described with its type, purpose, and how to discover it via roboshadow_list_organisations. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already covers the parameter adequately.

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 ('List'), a clear resource ('users belonging to a RoboShadow organisation'), and the exact fields returned. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like roboshadow_get_device_users, which are device-scoped rather than organisation-scoped.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The 'admin-gated' note signals an access requirement, but there is no mention of how this differs from device-user tools or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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