slide_list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the core behavior (list users) and mentions creation-date filtering, but does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), sorting options, or the return format. For a list operation with six parameters, this 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently states the purpose and a key capability without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has six optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is sparse. It covers the core purpose and date filtering but omits pagination, sorting, and response format details. While parameters are documented, the overall behavioral context is incomplete for a list operation.

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%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds the concept of creation-date filtering, which maps to the created_after and created_before parameters, but does not go beyond that. Since the schema covers everything, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (users), and adds a clarifying parenthetical that these are technicians with console access, which distinguishes it from other list tools like slide_list_accounts or slide_list_clients. It also mentions the filtering capability, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 to list users and possibly filter by creation date) but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like slide_get_user for a single user. There is no direct comparison to siblings or mention of exclusions, leaving some inference required.

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