List Users

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden, and 'List' does communicate a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It does not add richer behavioral context such as permission requirements, pagination, or whether unaccepted invitations are included, though the tool's low-risk read-only nature limits the impact of that 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 no filler or repetition beyond the title. Every word contributes to defining the resource and scope.

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 one-parameter list operation with an output schema available, this description is nearly complete: the resource scope, required developer_id, and return-value structure are all accounted for by the text plus schema. It would be fully complete if it explicitly stated the operation is read-only and noted the contrasting modification tools, but the low complexity keeps the overall gap small.

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% and the only parameter, developer_id, is already described as 'Developer account ID' in the schema. The description's mention of 'developer account' adds no additional format, constraint, or usage nuance beyond that, so the schema-heavy baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action ('List') and a clear resource ('users with access to a developer account'), and the developer-account qualifier prevents confusion with consumer-facing user lists. This distinguishes it from mutating siblings like create_user, update_user, and delete_user through the read-only list verb.

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 'with access to a developer account' implies the tool should be used when an agent needs to see account-level users, and the developer_id parameter is directly tied to that context. However, it never explicitly states when to use this instead of alternatives or mentions that create_user/update_user/delete_user are for modifying those users, leaving the guidance implicit.

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