yougile_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds meaningful context by noting users are 'employees' and that filtering by email or projectId is possible. No contradictions with annotations. It doesn't describe pagination or return format, but that is partially covered by schema parameters.

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?

Two sentences with a front-loaded verb and resource. Every word earns its place: 'List all users (employees) in the company. Can filter by email or projectId.' No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 tool is a simple list operation with optional filters. The description covers the core functionality and scope (all users, company-wide). Pagination (limit/offset) is in the schema, and no output schema exists, but the description is adequate for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 merely restates the email and projectId filters without adding new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It doesn't compensate for any missing param details, but none 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's function: 'List all users (employees) in the company.' The verb 'list' specifies the action, and 'users' identifies the resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user (single user) and user management tools by emphasizing enumeration of all users.

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 clear context for use: it lists all users with optional filters by email or projectId. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the sibling tool names (e.g., get_user, invite_user) make the distinction apparent from the description's 'all users' scope.

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