fossa_list_users

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral traits: page_size cap at 50, search fields, sort format, the deprecated unpaginated endpoint, service account flags, and that token metadata never includes token values. This adds substantial context beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral details. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all six parameters, explains edge cases (deprecated endpoint, service accounts), and addresses security-relevant details (token values never returned). Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is highly 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: page_size cap, search match fields, sort format, user_id single-fetch behavior, and include_all's effect. This goes well beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List the users in the FOSSA organization, or fetch one user by numeric id.' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('users'), and distinguishes two operation modes, setting it apart from sibling tools that focus on projects, issues, or other entities.

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 description provides clear context on when to use the default paginated list versus the deprecated `include_all` endpoint, and explains parameter behaviors like search and sort. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for user-related operations, but it gives enough internal guidance to make appropriate choices for most scenarios.

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