list_users

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It compensates well by stating the returned fields and the accepted host formats, including the MAC:numericId composite form. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but for a read-only list operation the key behavioral details are present.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, parameter semantics, and return fields. Everything earns its place, and the most important disambiguation is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, how to specify host/site, and what fields come back. It is complete enough for a simple two-parameter list operation, aside from minor omissions like pagination or result limits.

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%, but the description fully documents both parameters. 'host' gets a precise list of accepted formats, and 'site' is described as site name or ID. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List DHCP fixed-IP reservations and client aliases for a site.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic client/account listing siblings and explains what 'users' means in this context.

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 scope is implied by the resource wording, but the description never explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus sibling list tools like list_clients, list_known_clients, or list_accounts. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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