telivy_list_gws_users

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It communicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Get') and the kind of data returned (login and 2SV status), but it does not disclose output format, pagination, empty-result behavior, or permissions. It does not contradict any annotations.

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 sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every phrase adds relevant meaning.

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 one-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description and schema supply enough to invoke it correctly. It could be more explicit about not including M365 users or about pagination, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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%, with the only parameter already described as 'Assessment UUID', so the baseline is 3. The description's 'for a risk assessment' reinforces the id's role but adds no format or type detail beyond the 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('Google Workspace user accounts'), and the distinguishing scope ('login and 2SV status for a risk assessment'). This differentiates it from telivy_list_m365_users and other list tools.

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 phrase 'for a risk assessment' and the required assessment id imply the context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like telivy_list_m365_users. No exclusions or decision rules are provided.

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