pm_list_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only GET operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, safety, or lack of side effects. It also does not mention pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 extremely concise at two short sentences, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the endpoint and key info. Every sentence earns its place by adding value.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description need not explain output. However, with six parameters, only two are partially described. Missing details on team_id, organization_id, and x_user_id reduce completeness. The tool is moderately complete for a list endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'user_kind' values and 'label_ids' format and logic (OR combination) and warns against combining label_id and label_ids. However, it does not clarify the remaining four parameters (team_id, label_id, x_user_id, organization_id), leaving them underspecified.

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 it is a 'GET /users' with optional filters, specifying the purpose of listing users. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning specific filters like 'user_kind' and 'label_ids', which are unique to user listing.

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 explicit guidance: optional filters, valid values for user_kind ('internal|client'), format for label_ids ('comma-separated UUIDs (OR)'), and a clear warning not to combine 'label_id' and 'label_ids'. It lacks mention of when to use this tool versus other list tools (e.g., pm_list_teams) but still offers concrete usage instructions.

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