list_server_users_features

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a small amount of useful context by explicitly showing the GET method and route, and it is consistent with the annotations, though it does not disclose additional behavioral nuances.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, but the first line largely restates the tool name and the second line only repeats the endpoint. It is concise, yet it adds little explanatory substance.

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?

With zero parameters, rich safety annotations, and an output schema, the tool needs relatively little extra documentation. Still, the meaning of 'Server User Features' is vague and the description does not distinguish it from sibling feature/list tools, making this only minimally adequate.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain or clarify. This matches the baseline 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies a read operation ('Get') on a specific resource ('Server User Features') and provides the exact endpoint. It is not a tautology, but it does not differentiate this tool from closely named siblings such as list_features.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_features or list_user, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The endpoint line gives destination information but not selection criteria.

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