redmine_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It notes 'Stable' and admin requirement but omits details like error handling for non-admin calls, pagination behavior (though limit/offset params are in schema), or any side effects. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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 sentences with no fluff. It starts with a stability marker '[Stable]' and immediately conveys purpose, prerequisite, and output. Every word adds value.

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 no output schema, the description does cover return fields. However, with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the lack of parameter explanations leaves a gap. The tool is simple, so the description is adequate but not complete for all users.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meanings. It doesn't explain the 5 parameters (name, limit, offset, status, group_id), but their names are relatively intuitive. The description adds context about return fields but not parameter details. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Redmine users', specifies it requires admin privileges, and details the returned fields (IDs, login names, email addresses). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_get_user.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite of admin privileges, guiding usage. However, it does not compare with alternatives (e.g., when to use list vs. single user), though the context of returning multiple users implies its use case.

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