get_users

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

With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers no additional insights. It restates the tool's name ('get_users' vs 'Liste les utilisateurs') without revealing read-only status, authentication needs, response formats, or side effects.

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, direct sentence with no filler, repetitive, or extraneous content. It is appropriately sized for a parameterless, simple listing tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the core action and resource. However, it lacks any detail about return data, scope, or usage context, leaving the agent without useful operational specifics.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description has nothing to add since there are no parameter details to explain.

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 explicitly states 'List' (list) and 'utilisateurs GLPI' (GLPI users), clearly indicating the tool's action and resource. Since no sibling tool targets users, it successfully distinguishes itself from alternatives without needing explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus others. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred, and there is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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