swsd_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the returned field set and the assignment-relevance semantics, but nothing about pagination behavior or result volume beyond what the schema and output schema provide.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and return fields, followed by the two parameter-selection rules. No filler and every clause carries usable information.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations, an output schema, and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, routing, and key parameter intent. It stops short of noting pagination defaults or that results are paged, which is a minor gap given the output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds intent-level meaning beyond the schema: `available_for_assignment_only` is framed as the way to find valid assignees, and `email` as an exact single-user lookup, which helps disambiguate it from the substring `query` parameter.

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+resource ('List SWSD users') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like swsd_list_incidents or swsd_list_sites.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance: set `available_for_assignment_only: true` to find valid assignees for swsd_assign_incident, and set `email` for an exact single-user lookup. This routes the agent toward correct parameter choices, though it states no explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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