get_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 discloses that the tool supports pagination, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, response format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to fully inform the agent.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key features (filtering and pagination) without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior (pagination), but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for the agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'status' filters by active, locked, or all users, which aligns with the enum in the schema. However, it doesn't cover 'limit' and 'offset' parameters beyond mentioning pagination support, leaving their specific roles unclear. The description provides some value but doesn't fully compensate for the low coverage.

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 verb ('Get list') and resource ('users from Lychee Redmine'), making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings like get_project or get_projects by focusing on users rather than projects or issues. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_project_members, which might also involve users, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage context by mentioning filtering by status and pagination, suggesting it's for retrieving user lists with those controls. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_members or search_issues, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for ambiguity.

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