users/list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a safety-critical behavioral trait: it never reads /etc/shadow and therefore does not expose credentials. It also states the data source and covered fields. Minor gaps remain, such as ordering, default filtering behavior, and root/permission behavior, but the key security boundary is clearly disclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, and the '/etc/shadow' disclaimer earns its place as a critical behavioral boundary. Every sentence adds value.

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, optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys source, output content, and security scope well. It does not specify the default output format or default min_uid behavior, but those are covered by the parameter schema and are not critical gaps.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the fields listed, and with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Lists'), names the exact resource ('/etc/passwd'), and enumerates the returned fields (uid, gid, home, shell, group memberships). The phrase 'account identity, not credentials' further disambiguates the tool's scope and prevents confusion with a credential-reading tool.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use this tool: when account identity is needed, explicitly stating it never reads /etc/shadow and reports identity rather than credentials. It does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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