list_vendor_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does indicate the HTTP method GET, implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention pagination, return format, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short sentence with the endpoint in parentheses, making it extremely concise and free of redundant wording. It is well-structured for quick scanning, though it could arguably include more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves out essential context such as what the list returns, pagination behavior, or when to use this tool. The minimal description is insufficient for a complete understanding of the tool's operation and purpose.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not degrade it.

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 action ('取得' = get) and resource ('廠商使用者列表' = vendor user list), and includes the API endpoint 'GET /v1/vendors/users'. This is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, the resource name itself is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list_vendor_* or list_* tools. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent without decision support.

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