op_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It mentions permission requirements ('Требует прав на чтение списка пользователей') and error behavior ('вернёт ошибку с подсказкой'), plus how filters combine with query (AND). It also describes the return format, including pagination summary. Missing details like rate limits or exact error types, but substantial context is provided.

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 well-structured with an intro, Args, and Returns sections. It earns its length by explaining purpose and parameter semantics. The opening sentence about 'Люди обращаются друг к другу по именам' adds context but is slightly verbose; still, it's not excessive.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, filter semantics, pagination, permissions, error handling, and return shape. It is a self-contained reference sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema provides 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, but the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained: query (substring of name/login), filters (JSON array, combined via AND), page_size (default 50), and offset (page number starting at 1). This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Поиск пользователей по имени или логину' (Search users by name or login). It goes further to explain the practical use case—finding a user ID to pass to op_list_time_entries—which distinguishes it from sibling tools like op_list_projects or op_list_time_entries.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: 'Помогает найти ID пользователя... для передачи в op_list_time_entries параметром user_id'. It explains the search semantics (name and login) and mentions required permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or negative usage cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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