siigo_get_users

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. 'Get users catalog' implies a read-only operation, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, leaving significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise ('Get users catalog') and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'users catalog' entails, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as it aligns with the schema's completeness, though it doesn't provide extra value beyond confirming the lack of parameters.

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 'Get users catalog' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('users catalog'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'siigo_get_customer' or 'siigo_get_customers', which follow a similar pattern but target different resources.

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. With many sibling tools for retrieving different catalogs (e.g., 'siigo_get_customers', 'siigo_get_products'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.

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