Users: list

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not disclose pagination, result limits, ordering, or what happens with large user sets, and the word "all" may set false expectations about an unpaginated dump.

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?

Three words, front-loaded, zero waste. It is efficiently sized and readable, though the terseness shades into under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

With no output schema, no parameters, and only two annotations, the burden of describing the return value falls entirely on the description, which says nothing about what a "user" record contains or how results are paginated, ordered, or limited.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to explain; baseline is 4. The description introduces no phantom filters or options, though it also notes no filtering support explicitly.

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?

"List all users" gives a verb and resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the name/title ('users_list' / 'Users: list') and adds no distinguishing scope. An agent still cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick users_list over users_get, users_me, or accounts_list, though the core purpose is at least not misleading.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no prerequisites. With siblings like users_get (single user) and users_me (current user) present, the description should say when a full listing is appropriate, but it says nothing.

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