users_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses pagination behavior and limits, which is useful, but does not explain how filters or the include parameter behave, what authentication is required, or the exact response structure beyond mentioning pagination metadata.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the most important information (purpose, limit, pagination) front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 are covered. However, with four parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description only addresses limit and pagination, leaving sort, filters, and include semantically vague. This is a minimum-viable description for a list tool but has clear gaps.

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% and the description only elaborates on the limit parameter (default 50, max 200). The sort, filters, and include parameters are left entirely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 all users in the organization', specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like users_get (single user), users_modify, and users_delete by focusing on the list operation.

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?

Provides clear context: the tool lists all users in the organization, with pagination details (default 50, max 200). While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of users_get for multiple users', the scope is clear enough to infer appropriate usage.

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