list-users

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

The description adds a behavioral note that results are cached, beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). Pagination behavior is not described but is fully covered in the schema, so no contradiction. The caching info is valuable for agent understanding.

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?

Two sentences, extremely concise, front-loaded with the action and result. Every sentence adds value: purpose, use case, caching behavior.

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?

The description is complete for a simple read-only list tool. It covers purpose, return fields, and caching. Pagination is documented in schema. No output schema exists, but the description implies a list structure. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that the result is a list of user objects, but it's clear from context.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no new parameter-level meaning. It mentions organizationId defaults to the configured org, which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists users in a Favro organization and specifies the returned fields (id, name, email, role). It also provides a specific use case (resolving userIds from card assignments/comments), which distinguishes it from the sibling get-user tool.

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 explicitly advises using the tool to resolve userIds from card assignments and comments, giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for a single user, get-user might be more appropriate), but the sibling distinction is implied.

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