list_user_statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds useful context that 'presence is maintained by Huly server sessions' and specifies return fields, but does not elaborate on permissions, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 three sentences long, each sentence adds value: purpose and returns, usage context, and filtering options. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list operation with only three optional parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, why to use it, and how to filter. The presence of an output schema covers return format. It could mention that all presence records are listed by default, but the optional filter implies this, so it's adequate.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for the parameters; it just restates 'Filter by online or account UUID' which matches schema descriptions. No extra value is provided.

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 'List Huly user presence records' with specific verb and resource, and mentions returns of account UUIDs, online status, and last modified timestamp. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on user presence specifically, and provides a concise use case: 'Use this to check who is currently connected'.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool ('to check who is currently connected') and mentions filtering options ('Filter by online or account UUID'). It does not provide explicit alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to understand the primary use case.

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