sysknife_list_users

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' merely restates structured data. The one genuine addition is the scope word 'local' and 'all', implying no filtering and no directory/LDAP users — modest but real context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action name and immediately followed by the plain-language behavior. Only waste is the redundant 'Read-only' qualifier already covered by annotations.

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?

For a zero-param, read-only enumeration tool with rich annotations, the definition covers what is needed to call it correctly. With no output schema, a brief note on what fields each user entry contains would be the only meaningful addition.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'no params' correctly confirms this and prevents an agent from hunting for filter arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list all local user accounts. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as sysknife_list_groups or sysknife_get_sudo_grants by the resource named, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those neighbors.

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?

Usage is implied by 'list all local user accounts — no params', which tells the agent this is an unfiltered enumeration call. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over siblings like sysknife_get_password_aging or sysknife_get_sudo_grants, and no exclusions.

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