rm_list_users

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds organizational scope, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether archived users are excluded by default, or how include_billability affects results.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (purpose and filters) is front-loaded. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 listing tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose reasonably well. However, with six parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves meaning gaps, notably around include_billability and archived behavior, making it minimally viable but not fully 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?

The schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only explains role and discipline filtering. It does not clarify the semantics of page, per_page, archived, or include_billability, leaving agents to infer them from names and defaults.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users in the organization'), and specifies the two differentiating filters (role/discipline). This clearly distinguishes it from single-user retrieval (rm_get_user) and user-related subresources (rm_list_user_bill_rates).

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description implies it is for organization-wide user listing, but it does not mention that rm_get_user handles single-user detail or that status/bill-rate tools serve different purposes.

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