list_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List users' but does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, or whether it returns paginated results. It does not add context beyond the verb itself, leaving the agent to infer safety and side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and contains zero filler, making it highly efficient for agent parsing.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the primary resource (users) and the filter (developer account). However, it does not mention any optional behaviors like pagination or ordering, which might be relevant for a list operation, though these could be inferred from the output schema. Overall, it is adequately complete for its simplicity.

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 already provides a description for developer_id ('Developer account ID'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, such as format, constraints, or usage context. Per the rubric, baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers the parameters.

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 tool lists users with access to a developer account, using a specific verb (List) and resource (users) with a scope (developer account). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_user, update_user, and delete_user by indicating a read-only listing operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, such as whether it lists only active users or all users, nor does it refer to related tools for user management. The context is implied but not explicit, so it falls short of the 'clear context' benchmark.

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