n8n_list_users

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and scope. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the permission requirement ('Only available to instance owner'), lists the exact return fields, and hints at use cases ('user management and auditing'), enhancing behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with core functionality and constraints, using two efficient sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds critical information (what it does, who can use it, what it returns, and usage context), making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, constraints, return values, and usage. However, it lacks details on pagination or ordering for the list, which could be relevant for user management, leaving a minor gap in contextual coverage.

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 has 100% description coverage for its single parameter (limit), so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior details. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Retrieve all n8n users') and resource ('users with their roles and status'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like n8n_get_user (singular) and n8n_update_user_role (modification). It explicitly lists the returned fields (user ID, email, role, disabled status), making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 provides clear context for usage ('user management and auditing') and an important constraint ('Only available to instance owner'), which helps determine when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., n8n_get_user for single-user retrieval), missing full sibling differentiation.

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