oracle_linux_security_user_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the output attributes and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, has performance implications, or how it handles errors. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from the description.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and output attributes. No extraneous information is included, and the most important detail (listing OS users) is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides the fundamental information: what the tool lists (OS users with specific attributes). However, it does not specify if all users are listed or if there is any filtering, nor does it describe the output format. For a minimal tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 (only 'target') with a description that explains its purpose ('Target name from ~/.dbx/targets/'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 lists OS users with specific attributes (UID, GID, home, shell, group memberships). The verb is implied (list/show), and the resource is OS users. Among sibling tools, there is no other user-listing tool, so it is implicitly distinguished, but no explicit differentiation is provided.

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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions for invocation. The description simply states what the tool returns, not when it is appropriate to call it.

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