list_users_tool

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

No annotations are present, and the description discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or authentication requirements. For a listing operation, it's safe to assume read-only, but this is not stated.

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, clear sentence with no redundant content. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 list operation, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return format or pagination details (though parameters imply them), nor does it clarify whether it returns all users or only active ones (the 'active' default suggests filtering). This is sufficient for a basic tool but lacks depth.

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 five parameters (page, active, search, per_page, username), achieving high schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List GitLab users' clearly states the verb and resource, and the tool name reinforces it. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_user_tool (single user) and get_current_user_tool, though it could explicitly mention pagination/filtering.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_tool or search_global_tool. The description lacks context like 'use this to retrieve multiple users with filters'.

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