list_users

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

There are no annotations, and the description provides no behavioral traits such as read-only status, return format, authentication requirements, or side effects. It is merely a noun phrase, offering no transparency into how the tool behaves beyond the inferred listing action.

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 brief, but it is under-specified as a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It conveys minimal information and lacks a clear structural subject-verb-object form, making it more under-specified than concise.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the bar for completeness is lower. However, the description still leaves ambiguity about what 'non-system' means and what the output looks like. It is minimally viable but lacks enough context to fully characterize the tool's behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of the (empty) parameter set. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters.

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 identifies the resource as 'Non-system OMV users', and the tool name 'list_users' provides the action, making the purpose reasonably clear. It also implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_groups' by focusing on users and the 'non-system' scope. However, the description is a noun phrase rather than a complete sentence, so it lacks an explicit verb.

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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.

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