listUsers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is '[READ-ONLY]' and requires a specific scope, which covers safety and authentication needs. However, it doesn't mention potential behaviors like pagination, rate limits, or return format, leaving gaps in transparency for a list operation.

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 three key pieces of information (action, endpoint, scope, and read-only hint) in just two sentences. Every element earns its place without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core action, endpoint, and scope, but lacks details on output format, pagination, or error handling, which could be relevant for a list tool even with low complexity.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for appropriate compensation.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('list of users'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getUser' or 'listUserGroups', which would require more specific scope information to earn a 5.

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 some usage context by mentioning the required scope ('users:read'), which implies when authentication is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getUser' (for single user) or 'listUserGroups' (for groups), leaving the guidance at an implied level rather than explicit.

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