List users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful context that email addresses are returned because they are the login and explains how providerKey maps to login methods, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or response shape. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but not richly transparent.

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 concise and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The providerKey clarification is relevant but slightly jargon-heavy; still, every sentence earns its place.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description gives some output context (emails, providerKey) and annotations cover safety. However, agent-facing gaps remain: no pagination/default-limit clarification, weak order_by semantics, and no guidance on when to use search_users instead. The misleading 'page lists' note in the limit description further reduces completeness.

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 67% (limit and filter have descriptions; order_by does not). The tool description adds no parameter semantics of its own. The limit description is partly off-topic for users, referencing tags, locale, and path, so the description does not compensate for the moderate schema gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the wiki’s user accounts.' This is clear and distinguishes it from mutation tools, but it does not differentiate it from the sibling search_users, which also deals with user lookup.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use list_users versus search_users or get_user. The providerKey explanation is context, not usage direction, and the limit parameter's schema description even veers into page-list terminology ('Wiki.js has no offset for page lists'), which is misleading for a user list tool.

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