config_list_users

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List users,' which implies a read-only action but does not disclose pagination behavior (max_results), the requirement for instance_id, or any side effects. The description adds no meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 two words ('List users'), which is extremely concise but under-specified. It essentially restates the tool name and does not earn its place by adding new information. This is closer to under-specification than effective conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, the description is inadequate for a tool with three parameters. An output schema exists, but the description does not explain input semantics or when to invoke the tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanations for the three parameters (region, instance_id, max_results). The agent must rely entirely on parameter names, which are not defined or clarified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the action (list) and resource (users), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other entities (e.g., hours of operations, phone numbers). However, it lacks scope context (e.g., instance-specific users) and does not explicitly differentiate from similar user-related tools like config_describe_user.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as config_describe_user or list_instances. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any context that would help an agent decide between listing users and other operations.

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