sigma_get_user_attribute_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds the specific scope of 'user assignments' but does not provide additional behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or edge cases. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description adds moderate value but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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 concise sentence without unnecessary words. It directly conveys the tool's purpose and earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The annotations and output schema cover safety and return structure. However, the description could benefit from a brief note on what 'user assignments' entails or how 'all' is enumerated, but given the tool's simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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 for the missing parameter documentation. It only says 'for a user attribute,' which vaguely maps to the 'attribute_id' parameter but does not explain the expected format, how to obtain the ID, or any constraints. This is insufficient to fully understand the parameter's semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Get all user assignments for a user attribute.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('user assignments') and the scope ('for a user attribute'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_get_user_attribute_teams and sigma_get_user_attribute_tenants.

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 but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It identifies the action (getting user assignments) but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as using sigma_get_user_attribute_teams for team assignments. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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