infomaniak_list_account_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description reinforces the read-only nature and adds 'admin' context, implying require permissions. It does not contradict annotations and provides some extra behavioral context, though it does not detail things like pagination or field inclusions. Given the output schema exists, this is adequate.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the action ('List users') and immediately specify the resource and use case. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, its read-only nature, and its intended use. It is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list operation without needing to explain return values or complex behavior.

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 one parameter, account_id, with a clear description: 'Infomaniak account/organization ID.' Schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: 'List users attached to an Infomaniak account.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on users within an account, and the phrase 'Read-only admin inventory' adds a clear scope. This is a specific verb+resource combination that separates it from tools like listing organizations or account details.

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 by stating it is an 'admin inventory for access review and offboarding.' This implies suitable scenarios but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. While the use case is clear, a direct comparison to related tools (e.g., infomaniak_get_account_full) would improve the guidance.

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