infomaniak_list_drive_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds the 'Manager-private' restriction, which is a meaningful behavioral constraint not covered by annotations. It also clarifies the meaning of 'access' with 'who can touch what's in this drive.' No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. Three short sentences cover purpose, use case, and a critical access restriction without any fluff.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description only needs to cover usage context. It provides purpose, audit relevance, and manager restriction. The only gap is the lack of guidance on obtaining drive_id, but that is minor given the simplicity and output schema.

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 does not mention the drive_id parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description should have compensated for the lack of schema documentation by explaining how to identify the drive or that drive_id is required. It adds 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 tool's function: 'List the users with access to a kDrive.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing drive-level access ('who can touch what's in this drive') and the 'Manager-private' note, which differentiates it from file-access or invitation tools.

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 a clear context for use: 'Useful for access audits.' This implies when to use the tool (auditing drive access). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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