list-users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions an access restriction ('Only available for the instance owner'), which is useful context, but fails to describe other key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 with two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key restriction. There is no wasted language, and the information is front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with access control), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It omits details on return values, error handling, pagination, and full parameter semantics, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain the 'clientId' parameter at all. This leaves the parameter's purpose, format, or how it relates to retrieving users completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage and adding no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('all users from your instance'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-user' (singular) or 'create-users', leaving room for ambiguity in distinguishing scope from similar operations.

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 some context by stating 'Only available for the instance owner,' which implies a usage restriction based on permissions. However, it does not offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-user' (for a single user) or 'create-users' (for adding users), leaving the agent to infer distinctions from tool names alone.

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