list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the core function. It omits important behaviors such as caching behavior, pagination, and output format defaults, which are only partially hinted at in the parameter schema. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core purpose clearly and is appropriately sized for a straightforward list operation.

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?

Despite having a rich schema and output schema, the description lacks context about pagination, caching behavior, or how results are returned. It does not explicitly state that it lists all users, and it fails to address important operational details that would help an agent use the tool confidently.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the schema already provides the needed semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 'List organization users' uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'organization users', making it clear what the tool does. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_user (which retrieves a single user) and list_team (which lists team members), so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user or find_assignee. The description does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction on choosing this tool over similar list/get options.

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