wetrack_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only operation through 'Retrieve' and clearly describes conditional behavior: lightweight {id, name} output for dropdowns versus full user details including designation otherwise. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond parameter definitions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two essential parameter explanations. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only listing with two optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description fully covers invocation semantics: filter values, output shape switching, and default behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully documents both parameters: role lists exact allowed values, and is_dropdown explains both the True and False/omitted outcomes. This exceeds what the raw schema provides and leaves no ambiguity.

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 opens with 'Retrieve the list of users in the organisation,' which is a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes this list operation from single-user retrieval operations like wetrack_get_user and from list operations on other resources.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wetrack_get_project_users or wetrack_get_user. It explains parameters but provides no context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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