timedoctor_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys read-only listing behavior and optional company scoping, which is useful, but it does not mention pagination behavior, the default exclusion of archived users, or the global scope when company is omitted. These are partially covered by schema descriptions but not by the tool description itself.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then immediately conveys scope and filter options. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 list operation with six fully documented optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it. The schema fills in parameter-level details such as defaults and the meaning of company, page, and limit, so the description's brevity is not a critical gap.

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 the baseline is 3; the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It does add the high-level framing that filtering is by email/name and that company scoping is optional, but it contributes little 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Time Doctor users'), and adds meaningful scope/filter context. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like timedoctor_get_user (singular retrieval) and timedoctor_list_companies (different resource).

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 the tool—when listing users, optionally scoped by company or filtered by email/name—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like timedoctor_get_user for single-user lookups. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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