List users

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

The description adds value beyond annotations that already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. It discloses the admin-only requirement and the important behavioral fact that accounts are created automatically on first login, so the set is all historical users. This gives the agent a clear mental model of the returned data.

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 short sentences, all essential. The action and resource lead, the admin restriction follows immediately, and the semantic clarification earns its place by preventing a common misinterpretation.

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 simple list operation with an output schema, complete pagination documentation in the schema, and annotations covering safety semantics, the description gives everything an agent needs. No critical gaps remain.

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 documents both parameters fully, including page starting at 1 and per_page range with Woodpecker's clamping behavior. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: it 'Lists the accounts known to this Woodpecker instance.' It also differentiates this from a managed roster and from single-user operations like get_user by clarifying the list is auto-populated by login history.

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 clearly specifies an access prerequisite ('Admin only') and gives useful contextual guidance about what the list contains versus what it is not ('not a managed roster'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the list-vs-get distinction is strongly implied by the wording.

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