list_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format (list of users with state, capabilities, MFA status), which is helpful, but doesn't address critical aspects like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the core purpose is stated first, followed by clearly labeled sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and scannable.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with one required parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context like pagination or error handling. It's adequate for a simple list tool but could be more complete regarding operational constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining the single parameter's purpose ('OCID of the compartment to list users from'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameter's role and format clear to the agent.

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 specific action ('List all IAM users') and resource ('in a compartment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_user' (which retrieves a single user) and other list tools for different resources. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage by specifying the compartment scope, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user' or other list tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat implied rather than explicitly guided.

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