list_users

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered; the description adds the previously unstated authorization requirement (user.manage / Admin) and reveals the full return shape in the absence of an output schema. It stops short of disclosing pagination or result caps for what claims to be an instance-wide listing.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the identity and return shape come first, the authorization prerequisite second. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields, and it discloses the permission gate. It is nearly complete for a zero-required-param read tool, missing only notes on result limits or pagination for a potentially large instance-wide listing.

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% and the single 'site' parameter already carries a rich description (multisite behaviour, default site, pointer to list_sites). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for schema-does-the-work applies.

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 (List) with a precisely scoped resource (every CMS user account, instance-wide) and even enumerates the returned fields (id, email, name, roles, section scopes, locked flag, createdAt). It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling mutation tools create_user, update_user and delete_user by verb alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the stated prerequisite 'Requires the user.manage permission (Admin)', which is a genuinely useful gating condition. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus an alternative, and there is no guidance on filtering, scoping or pagination behaviour to help an agent decide how to call it.

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