list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds the useful scoping fact that the result is workspace-wide and unfiltered, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether deactivated/bot users are included — the practical behaviors an agent would want to know.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the name and nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape, this is nearly complete. The remaining gap is operational detail — pagination and result-set expectations — which is minor given the simplicity and the annotation coverage.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no schema surface for the description to elaborate on. "All users in the workspace" usefully confirms there is no filtering capability rather than leaving the agent to wonder whether options were omitted.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("users") and adds scope ("in the workspace", "all"), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It stops short of a 5 because it offers no contrast with siblings such as list_comments or get_self, leaving the agent to infer that this is the only user-enumeration tool.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites. The only usage signal is implicit in "List all users," which an agent must interpret on its own.

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