List Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description builds on that by adding return format details (compact summaries with specific fields), optional include_teams and include_contact_info behaviors, and the critical fact that it returns all users in a single response with no pagination. This goes beyond the annotations and helps set expectations.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and output, the second explains why the tool's IDs are important across the platform, and the third covers optional parameters and pagination. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Even though an output schema exists (not shown), the description sufficiently explains return values including field names and optional inclusions. It also covers pagination behavior (none) and connect to other entities in the system. For a read-only list tool with two optional params, this is complete information.

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?

Both parameters (include_teams, include_contact_info) are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, and the description essentially repeats the same information. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what is already in 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 clearly states the tool 'Lists all Recruit CRM users' with a specific verb and resource, and describes the output as 'compact summaries' with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_teams and list_candidates by focusing on users and their IDs.

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 explains that user IDs from this tool are used as owner_id, created_by, updated_by, etc. across many entities, giving strong context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude any alternative but implicitly positions this as the source for user references and mentions optional flags to tailor output.

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