List Users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds useful disclosure of return fields (user IDs, session counts, etc.) and behavioral traits like case-insensitive partial match for search, enhancing transparency beyond what annotations provide.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous text. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential functionality, return data, and filtering/search capabilities with clarity.

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 tool has 14 parameters (all documented in schema), no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it states the return fields, mentions filtering and search, and implies pagination exists (though not detailed). It does not explain time range or sorting, but the schema covers those. Overall, it is adequately complete for a list tool.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters. The description adds contextual information (e.g., 'any analytics dimension' for filters, 'case-insensitive partial match' for search) but largely duplicates schema content. No parameter is left undocumented by the schema, so the description's added value is marginal, yielding a baseline score of 3.

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 lists users for a site, specifies the returned data (user IDs, session counts, dates, traits), and mentions filtering and search capabilities. The verb 'list' plus resource 'users' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_user' (single user) and 'live_users' (real-time).

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 implies usage for listing users with filtering and search, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for different needs (e.g., single user detail via get_user, real-time via live_users). The context is clear but lacks exclusions or direct sibling comparisons.

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