List Tracker users

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the description's added value is the ordering guarantee, the id-cursor auto-pagination mechanism, and the item-cap behaviour. It does not mention permission requirements or what a truncated result looks like, but the disclosed traits go meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then pagination/cap behaviour, then the alternative tool. No filler and nothing repeated unnecessarily.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, pagination, and cap semantics, and routes the agent elsewhere for single-user lookups. It stops short of describing return fields or the meaning of expand beyond the schema's 'e.g. groups', which is a minor gap.

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 schema itself already documents both limit (default cap) and expand. The description restates the limit/cap relationship without adding format or syntax detail, so it only marginally exceeds what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list all organisation users) plus scope detail (sorted by ascending uid), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tracker_users_get. An agent can pick between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (users_get) and the exact condition that selects it (you already know the specific login or uid), and explains when to supply limit versus relying on the configured cap. Both routing decisions are explicit rather than inferred.

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