List Company Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as response format, pagination, or any limitations; it merely restates the title. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotation information.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately minimal for a tool with no parameters.

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 low complexity, empty parameter list, and existing annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not hint at what the returned user list contains (e.g., IDs, emails, roles) and there is no output schema to fill that gap. For a list tool, a bit more context about the response would improve completeness, but it is not critical for a simple read-only operation.

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 is an empty object with 100% coverage. There is nothing for the description to elaborate on, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'users in your Kinsta company,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling company-related tools like kinsta_company_regions or kinsta_company_api-keys, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer it is for user listing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about scenarios where it applies. It is a bare statement that leaves all usage decisions to the agent without any comparative direction.

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