List users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behaviorally — no auth requirements, no pagination semantics beyond the schema, no indication of what a filtered result contains. It essentially restates the arg names.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and tight, but the 'Args: query (optional), limit, offset' clause mostly duplicates schema field names and consumes space without adding meaning. Short, but not every element earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with ubiquitous annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It still leaves open what query filters on and how pagination interacts with results, which an agent would want before invoking it.

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 coverage is 67%: limit and offset are documented in the schema, while query has no description there. The description only flags query as 'optional' (already implied by zero required params) without saying whether it matches name, email, or both. Marginal value over the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List workspace users'. It is unambiguous against siblings like outline_list_documents or outline_list_comments, though it never explicitly differentiates itself — the disambiguation comes entirely from the resource noun.

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?

'optionally filtered' hints that a query exists but gives no when-to-use guidance, no condition selecting it over outline_search, and no note on what the filter matches. The agent must infer the use case.

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