bookstack_users_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'pagination and filtering options,' it fails to detail critical behaviors: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or the format of returned data (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all users in the system') and adds key features ('with pagination and filtering options') without unnecessary details. It avoids redundancy and waste, making it easy to parse. A slight deduction is due to the lack of structure (e.g., not separating purpose from guidelines), but it remains appropriately concise for its content.

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 complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and hints at capabilities but lacks depth: it doesn't explain return values (critical without an output schema), error conditions, or integration with sibling tools. While it meets a bare-minimum threshold, it doesn't fully address the tool's context, leaving the agent to infer too much from the schema alone.

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, providing clear details for all parameters (count, offset, sort, filter). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'pagination and filtering options,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't elaborate on syntax or usage nuances. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic insights.

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 action ('List all users') and resource ('users in the system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions key capabilities ('pagination and filtering options'), which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bookstack_users_read' (which likely retrieves a single user) or 'bookstack_users_create' (which creates users), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'bookstack_users_read' for single-user retrieval or 'bookstack_search' for broader searches, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements) or typical use cases (e.g., administrative tasks). This lack of context could lead to misuse or inefficiency.

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