List Organization Users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a key permission requirement (delegated User.ReadBasic.All) and implies read-only behavior, but it does not disclose return format, pagination details, or other behavioral traits like rate 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?

The description is appropriately concise: two English sentences plus a Chinese intents line. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential permission information without fluff.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, permission requirement, and language variants. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention that the result is a list or that 'top' controls page size, but these are minor gaps.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'top' with 100% coverage, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as default behavior or how to use top.

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 (List), resource (organization users), and scope (basic profile fields), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like users_search and users_get_profile. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it's not a full 5.

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 a clear purpose but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Usage is implied ('list organization users') and permission requirements are given, but no 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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