List users and groups

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the tool is cached for ~5 minutes per MCP session, and refresh=true forces a reload. It also clarifies that Type values have a restricted scope (UI tree only), which is important context for interpreting results. This goes beyond what annotations and schema already convey.

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 compact and well-organized: one line for purpose, one line for type-value scope, and one line for caching behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 tool is simple—one optional boolean parameter—and has an output schema. The description explains the core output concept (tree with Type values), the caching behavior, and the refresh parameter. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its results in context.

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 schema has only one parameter, refresh, with no schema description. The description compensates by explaining that refresh=true forces a cache reload, adding semantic value. It does not explicitly describe the default behavior when refresh is omitted, but the schema provides default: false, so the combination is sufficient.

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 action and resource: 'List users and groups tree (GetUsersGroups2)'. The word 'tree' clarifies the hierarchical nature of the output, which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_user_info or list_risks. The purpose is immediately obvious and not a mere restatement of the name.

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 by stating that the Type values are for the UI tree only and that report POST filters should use NodeType values instead. This gives a concrete exclusion and prevents misuse. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or describe exactly when to choose this tool over similar list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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