list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, what the default result ordering is, or what happens with large result sets. The only behavioral hint is the 'limit/offset' mention, which describes pagination mechanics rather than tool behavior.

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?

One-line purpose statement followed by a compact Args block — front-loaded and free of filler. The list format is slightly verbose for self-evident parameters like limit and offset, but it remains scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and the filter parameters are covered. However, with zero annotation coverage the definition omits any behavioral context (read-only nature, permissions, matching semantics for name fields), leaving a moderate gap for a 7-parameter listing tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, and it documents all seven parameters. It adds genuine value with the 'contains' matching semantics for username and by naming the boolean filters (is_active, is_superuser) that are otherwise only inferable from titles; it stops short of clarifying whether first_name/last_name are exact or partial matches.

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 and resource ('List users') plus the scoping qualifier 'with optional filters', which is immediately clear. It does not, however, distinguish this bulk listing operation from siblings like get_user, create_user, or update_user, nor does it clarify what set of users is returned (all users? current org?).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus get_user (single lookup) or the other user-management siblings, and no stated prerequisites such as admin permissions. The phrase 'optional filters' implies a browsing/search use case but the agent must infer it.

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