list_users_and_teams

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates that matching is by name, but does not clarify case sensitivity, partial matching, result limits, or whether both users and teams are returned together. Adequate but lacks depth.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence of 12 words that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No redundant phrases; every word contributes meaning.

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?

The tool has only one simple parameter and an output schema (not shown but present). The description is sufficient for a straightforward search operation, though it could mention the output format or pagination if relevant.

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% description coverage, with only a title 'Name' for the parameter. The description adds value by stating that the text is matched against names, clarifying the parameter's role beyond the schema.

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 action ('search'), the resource ('monday.com users and teams'), and the filtering criterion ('names match the supplied text'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_boards or get_current_user by focusing on a specific domain.

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 context: when you need to find users or teams by name. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough that the purpose is clear. A small gap in explicit guidance.

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