swsd_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail such as exact email matching and assignment-filter semantics, but it does not disclose potential pagination behavior or rate limits, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tightly written sentences with the purpose and returned fields front-loaded, followed by two high-value usage notes. No filler or redundant restating of the schema is present.

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?

The definition is complete for a simple read-only list operation: it states the resource, lists return fields, flags the key filtering use cases, and the schema covers pagination and remaining parameter details. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description goes beyond the schema by linking available_for_assignment_only to the swsd_assign_incident workflow and by explaining that email performs an exact one-user lookup, which genuinely helps an agent choose and set 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 starts with a specific verb and resource, 'List SWSD users,' and enumerates the exact returned fields, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is also the only user-listing tool in the sibling set, so there is no ambiguity about what resource it operates on.

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 gives two concrete usage contexts: setting available_for_assignment_only to find valid assignees for swsd_assign_incident, and setting email for an exact single-user lookup. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but for a unique list-users tool the guidance is clear and actionable.

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