List Redmine Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the admin privilege requirement and the return format ('Table of users'), which are not in annotations. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, an important usage note, a bulleted arg list, and a return statement. No fluff, everything earns its place. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, permissions, parameter semantics, and return format. It doesn't mention pagination defaults or error handling, but those are minor given the annotations and schema defaults. It's sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful details: 'partial match' for name, includes status 0=anonymous (not in schema), and clarifies limit/offset as pagination. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and compensates for the schema's omission of status 0.

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 opens with 'List users in Redmine' – a specific verb, resource, and system. It also adds an important scoping constraint (admin vs non-admin) that differentiates it from other listing tools, though no sibling is explicitly named. This is unambiguous and distinct.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Requires admin privileges for full list; non-admins can use project memberships instead.' This names the alternative (project memberships, which corresponds to redmine_list_memberships) and gives a clear condition. It leaves no guesswork about who should use this tool.

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