Governance List Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the shape of returned fields (quoted_name, conditional quoted_qualified_name), but says nothing about scope, result size, pagination, or filtering — and an output schema already exists, so the return-field detail is partly duplicative.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence spends disproportionate space on quoted_name formatting nuances rather than on the undocumented filter parameter.

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?

Purpose and returned data are adequately described. The main gap is filter semantics, but with annotations and an output schema in place, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly for its core listing use case.

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?

One parameter ('pattern') exists with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent cannot tell whether it is a regex, a SQL LIKE pattern, a substring match, or what happens when it is null. This is the definition's largest functional gap.

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 and resource ('List users in the Snowflake account') plus the notable fields returned (login status, default roles), so an agent can tell this apart from governance_list_roles or databases_list_databases. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the closest sibling, governance_describe_user.

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 guidance on when to use this versus governance_describe_user (single user detail) or governance_list_grants_to_user. The use case is only implied by the tool name; no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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