authGetUsers

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 states 'Get a list of users' but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or the response format (e.g., pagination). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with a single sentence, 'Get a list of users,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions like guidelines and transparency.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, auth needs), usage context, and output expectations. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall description doesn't provide enough context for effective agent use.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters (emails, enabled, roles, includeMetadata). Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance understanding.

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 a list of users' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('users'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'authGetUser' (singular) or explain the scope of 'list' (e.g., all users vs. filtered). This makes it adequate but vague regarding specificity.

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. It doesn't mention the sibling 'authGetUser' for single-user retrieval or other auth tools like 'authSetUsers'. There's no context on prerequisites, such as authentication needs, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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