Lists all workspace users when explicitly asked to view the user directory; avoid using it to find a user ID.
List all workspace users. Use ONLY when the caller explicitly asks to view the user directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return contents, pagination, ordering, permissions, or rate limits. For a simple no-parameter read tool this is minimally viable, but meaningful behavioral gaps remain.
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 with no wasted text. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the usage constraint.
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?
For a simple, zero-parameter list tool, the description covers the core purpose and the triggering condition. However, there is no output schema explaining what is returned, and the description does not clarify whether results are paginated, how users are ordered, or what fields are included.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: "List all workspace users." That is clear enough to distinguish it from message- and channel-oriented siblings. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling it substitutes for, such as get_my_info or ID-resolution tools; the distinction is only implied by the tool name and the usage restriction.
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 gives an explicit trigger: "Use ONLY when the caller explicitly asks to view the user directory." The word "ONLY" also excludes other uses. But it does not name an alternative tool for resolving user IDs, so it stops short of full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.