list_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: it mentions the return format ('以表格格式呈現' - in table format) and default/max values for parameters. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a list operation.

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 and concise, with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well and hints at the return format, but lacks details on output structure (e.g., fields in the table), error cases, or integration with siblings, leaving gaps for the agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'limit' (maximum return count, default 20, max 100) and 'status_filter' (status filtering options: 'active', 'locked', 'all'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, making it easy for an agent to understand how to use them.

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 purpose as '列出所有用戶' (list all users), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user' (singular) or 'search_users', leaving room for confusion about when to use this versus those alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user' or 'search_users'. While it implies listing all users, it doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., bulk retrieval vs. specific lookups) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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