List Scaleway IAM Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond confirming it's a read-only listing. It mentions the required permissions, which is useful, but doesn't describe pagination, rate limits, or other operational traits. Given annotations handle the safety profile, the description's additional value is limited but not absent.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, lists key return fields, and caps with permission requirements. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff. This is an exemplary model of conciseness.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, return fields, permissions, and scope. The only missing element is pagination behavior (e.g., limit, cursor), but for a simple listing this is acceptable. No sibling tool overlaps in a confusing way.

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 description coverage is 100% (1 parameter fully described). The description adds no additional parameter meaning—it doesn't elaborate on filter behavior, case sensitivity, or pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently, and the description doesn't enhance it.

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 it lists human users of the organization, specifies the IAM page reference, and enumerates the returned fields (id, email, status, type, locked, MFA flags). This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination, and among the sibling tools, it's the only user-focused listing tool, making it unambiguously 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?

The description includes the required permission ('Needs IAMUserReadOnly/IAMUserManager'), which serves as a usage prerequisite. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, the context is clear: it's a simple listing tool. No sibling tool directly threatens ambiguity, but explicit when-to-use guidance is absent.

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