tracearr_list_users

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description supplements this with concrete behavioral details: newest-first ordering, cursor pagination, account correlation being Tracearr-side, and the exact semantics of include_removed. This adds meaningful transparency beyond the annotation, though it does not discuss cursor expiration or other potential edge behaviors.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary behavior, then appends pagination/filter semantics. Every clause adds value, and there is no repetition of schema fields or annotations.

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?

An output schema is present, so return-value details are covered. The description covers key behavioral aspects: ordering, pagination, account ownership, and the removed filter. It lacks explicit usage guidance or alternatives, but given the schema and annotation, the description is sufficiently complete for a list tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of parameter explanation. It explicitly clarifies include_removed and the phrase 'Cursor-paginated' explains cursor's role, but page_size is not mentioned. The parameter names and defaults are self-evident, yet the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Cursor-paginated Tracearr identities, newest first' which clearly identifies the resource (Tracearr identities) and the core list/pagination behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tracearr_get_user (singular retrieval) and tracearr_get_history by specifying identity-level listing with owned media-server accounts.

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 a list/browse use case by describing pagination and the optional include_removed filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or contrast with tools like tracearr_get_user. Usage context is present but not fully articulated.

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