list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the read-only nature ('List'), but does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, or potential caching. Given the output schema exists and the tool is simple, the description is adequate but lacks extra behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences without any wasted words. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides the use case. Excellent front-loading and efficiency.

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 no parameters, no annotations, but an output schema (which handles return structure), the description covers the tool's purpose and usage context. It could mention if only active users are listed, but for a simple list tool it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (no parameters). The description adds value by explaining the content of the list and its purpose, which goes beyond the empty schema. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.

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 'List firm users' with specific categories (attorneys, paralegals, staff) and explicitly ties its usage to looking up IDs for fields in other tools, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does and its primary use case.

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 explains when to use the tool: to obtain user IDs for fields like `responsible_attorney_id`. It does not provide explicit exclusions or contrasts with siblings, but the context of looking up IDs for other tools provides clear guidance. Among siblings, no other tool lists users, so the purpose is well-scoped.

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