scim_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the 1000-result page cap, the pagination model, and the shape of returned resources. It does not mention auth requirements or totalResults semantics, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the protocol and scope, then capabilities, then return shape. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states what comes back (SCIM User resources with standard and extension attributes) and covers the page-size limit. It omits totalResults/pagination cursor behavior and any auth prerequisites, which is a modest gap for a read-only list 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema with their own semantics. The description only restates that filtering and pagination exist, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list users) and names the protocol (SCIM v2.0), which is what separates it from the plain `list_users` sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with `list_users` or `scim_get_user`, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. It describes capabilities (filtering, pagination) rather than conditions for choosing this tool over `list_users`, `get_user`, or `scim_get_user`, so routing is left entirely to inference.

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