focus_list_org_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The explicit statement 'Mutations are not performed' is a valuable safety signal. It does not cover rate limits or response structure, but for a read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 concise sentences front-load the tool's purpose and safety, with no filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the description provides adequate context. It could mention the expected return format, but 'list organization users' plus the assignee resolution hint covers the core need.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters, giving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning; the parameter names and schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('organization users'), and context ('Toggl Focus/2.0'), along with an intended purpose ('for assignee resolution'). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling list tools like focus_list_projects and focus_list_tasks.

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 phrase 'for assignee resolution' signals when this tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. This is clear context without exclusions.

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