list_users

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation but adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already conveys. It does not disclose return format, pagination, or any specific attributes—an opportunity for enrichment is missed, but no contradiction exists.

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, complete sentence in Chinese, directly stating the action and subject. It is economical and front-loaded, with no redundant content.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate—it names the resource and the action. However, it could explicitly mention that it returns all users or list the attributes to be returned, which would enhance completeness. Despite this, the tool's simplicity and readOnlyHint keep the description sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides complete coverage (100%) and the description adds nothing—which is acceptable. Baseline of 4 applies because the tool's simplicity means no param explanations are needed.

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 database users and their attributes, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_tables and list_views by targeting 'users', but does not explicitly mention scope or filtering, so it doesn't fully differentiate all siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The agent must infer from the name alone, which is minimal.

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