list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only explains the include_disabled parameter, but omits critical behaviors such as pagination support (via 'after' and 'first' parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. This leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 very concise at two sentences with no redundant words. The backtick formatting for the parameter explanation is a minor stylistic informality, but the brevity is a strength. It could be slightly more structured but remains effective.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of pagination mechanics, the 'workspace' parameter specification, and the output format (though an output schema exists). The agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly in many scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'include_disabled' parameter clearly, but the remaining parameters ('after', 'first', 'workspace') receive no explanation. The agent must infer their meaning from names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'List users in a Linear workspace', which specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'users'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_user' (single user) and other list tools (e.g., list_issues). However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it misses the top score.

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 usage for obtaining a list of users, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user' for a single user. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for choosing this tool.

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