wealthbox.listUsers

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. It mentions the scope (all users accessible) but omits typical list behaviors such as pagination, ordering, active/inactive status, or response structure. The agent does not know if the list is complete, sorted, or includes disabled users.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the essential information without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter, simple list operation, the description adequately conveys the core action and scope. However, without an output schema, it does not explain the returned data structure (e.g., user fields, whether the list is paginated). This is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, but there is nothing to clarify beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all users accessible to the authenticated account'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools by specifying the resource (users) and scope (accessible to the account). The title and name align, and no ambiguity exists about the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listTeams or userGroups.list. It does not mention use cases, contrasts with other list tools, or state any prerequisites or exclusions. The description is purely declarative without contextual advice.

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