grafana_listar_usuarios

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Listar' implies a read, but it says nothing about permissions required, whether results are paginated by default, or how the 'current organization' is resolved. For a zero-annotation tool this is thin.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted clauses, but the leading '93.' is an artifact that dilutes front-loading, and the sentence is too terse to carry any operational detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained. However, for a list endpoint with paging parameters and no annotations, the missing pagination/defaults note and the absent permission context leave real gaps an agent would hit on first call.

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 0% for both parameters (page, limit); only names and defaults exist. The description never mentions pagination, page size, or defaults, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on a listing tool where paging semantics matter most.

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?

Specific verb ('Listar') plus resource ('usuários') and scope ('membros da organização atual'), which distinguishes it from sibling grafana_listar_organizacoes (orgs) and grafana_listar_equipes (teams). The stray '93.' prefix is noise but doesn't obscure intent.

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 on when to use this versus grafana_consultar_permissoes, grafana_gerenciar_equipes, or other identity-related siblings. The organization scoping is the only implicit selector; there are no exclusions or alternatives named.

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