list_enabled_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the action ('List enabled user(s)') without any information on permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's a read-only operation. This lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of critical behavioral aspects needed for correct invocation.

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 with a single phrase, 'List enabled user(s)', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While this conciseness leads to under-specification in other dimensions, it efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity implied by sibling tools (many user-listing variants), lack of annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand when to use it, what it returns, or how to parameterize it correctly, failing to compensate for the missing structured information.

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 input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description does not mention any parameters, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with an undocumented required parameter, this is a significant gap that hinders proper usage.

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 'List enabled user(s)' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'enabled user(s)', but fails to distinguish this tool from numerous sibling tools that also list users with various filters (e.g., list_all_enabled_users_logged_in_last_90_days, list_all_enabled_users_with_password_never_expires). The purpose is vague about what 'enabled' means in this context and lacks specificity.

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. With many sibling tools focused on listing users with specific attributes or filters, there is no indication of what makes this tool unique (e.g., whether it lists all enabled users without additional filters, or if it has a specific scope). This absence of context makes it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately among similar tools.

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