splunk_list_users

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'secrets redacted' tells the agent credential material will not be returned — but says nothing about permissions needed, result-set truncation, or whether the listing is paginated.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the distinguishing qualifier ('secrets redacted') last. No filler.

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 tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is rightly omitted. Still, the only argument is undocumented and there is no hint of the account volume or default cap, leaving the agent without enough to call it confidently at scale.

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?

There is one parameter ('count') with 0% schema description coverage and only a default of 100. The description never mentions limiting or paging results, so an agent gets no guidance on how many users come back or what the default cap means for completeness.

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 plus resource ('List configured user accounts') with the returned fields enumerated (roles, realnames, authentication types). It implicitly contrasts with splunk_get_user / splunk_list_roles by being a broad list, but never names them, so distinctness is inferable rather than stated.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it (enumerating accounts for auditing/inventory), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to splunk_get_user for single-account lookups or splunk_list_roles for role listing. Usage is left to inference.

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