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 behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one useful filter ('excluding system bots'), but it does not mention response format, read-only guarantees, ordering, or pagination. This is adequate for a simple list call but not richly transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and scope qualifier are immediately visible, and every word adds value.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, invocation requirements are fully specified. However, with no output schema, the description does not indicate what a successful response contains or whether limits/pagination apply, leaving a mild but real gap for an agent planning to consume the result.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing the description needs to clarify about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('organization users'), and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('excluding system bots'). This clearly distinguishes it from user-management siblings like get_user, create_user, update_user, delete_user, enable_user, and disable_user.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating organization users, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over get_user or other user-related tools. No alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, so usage context is only implied through the verb/resource pair.

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