List users

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: admin authorization is required, NTFY_TOPICS environment restrictions affect which grants are reported, and wildcard grants are expanded or entirely omitted based on allowed topics. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before invoking the tool.

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 compact and efficiently structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives the key prerequisite, and the final paragraph covers an important environment-specific edge case. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema 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 description covers the admin requirement, server-restriction behavior, wildcard expansion semantics, and the underlying question the tool answers. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not needed, and the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call 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 input schema already describes all three parameters fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about how topic matching and wildcard grants behave under server restrictions, which enriches the meaning of the topic and username filters without replacing schema-level parameter 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 names the exact resource ('users') and the specific payload ('per-topic grants'), immediately answering what the tool does. It also frames the tool as 'the answer to who can read or write topic X', which makes its purpose concrete and distinct from siblings like get_account or check_topic_access.

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 a clear use case, the 'who can read or write topic X' scenario, and an important prerequisite: an admin account, with get_server_info mentioned as the way to check qualification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as check_topic_access for narrower queries.

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