openwisp_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the HTTP GET endpoint, which signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, and mentions pagination and search support. However it omits auth requirements, whether results are organization-scoped, and pagination defaults/limits.

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 compact sentence with the category tag and endpoint appended; the core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is padded. Slightly dense with metadata, but appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema list tool this is adequate but thin: it never mentions the organization filter, the scoping of results, or what a response contains. Combined with the absence of annotations, an agent has to infer more than it should.

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%, so all four parameters (page, search, page_size, organization) are already documented in the schema. The description only generically references 'pagination and search' and adds no meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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 user accounts in OpenWISP') and adds the endpoint, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not differentiate itself from its close siblings (openwisp_get_user, openwisp_create_user, openwisp_delete_user), which is the only gap.

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 'List ... users' phrasing implies the retrieval use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission note, and no comparison against alternatives such as openwisp_get_user for a single account. Usage is left to inference.

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