list-users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the required permission but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, error handling, or whether the operation is safe (read-only). The behavior is partially implied but insufficiently detailed.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it could include a brief note about the 'limit' parameter without losing conciseness.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context (e.g., return format, pagination). It only covers purpose and permission, leaving many usage aspects unclear.

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 ('limit') with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention this parameter or explain its purpose (e.g., pagination limit). The schema provides constraints but the description adds no value beyond that.

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 explicitly states the action ('list users'), the scope ('visible to the connected Okta administrator'), and a prerequisite ('requires okta.users.read'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get-user' (single user) and 'search-users' (searching with filters).

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 that this tool lists all visible users, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'search-users' for filtering. No 'when-not-to-use' guidance is provided.

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