list_assignable_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral scope: returned users are active, internal, and eligible for assignment. It does not describe query/limit behavior in depth, but it does not contradict the 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 a single sentence with no filler. The key action and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 establishes the core purpose and target user population, and the output schema plus read-only annotations reduce the need for return-value and safety details. However, with no parameter semantics given and no explanation of how query/limit affect results, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent planning to call the 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the limit or query parameters. While the parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, the tool description adds no meaning about how query filters results or how limit behaves, so an agent has to guess.

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 resource and purpose: resolving active internal Odoo users assignable to tasks/timesheets. It clearly identifies what the tool does and is easily distinguishable from the project/task/timesheet-focused sibling tools.

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 for when to use the tool: when an agent needs users that this MCP can assign to tasks or timesheets, scoped to active internal users. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool directly competes with this user-listing function.

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