list_users

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List users in the workspace' without disclosing behavioral traits such as client-side filtering (which is mentioned only in the schema), pagination, or return format. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 a clear front-loaded action statement and a helpful example. Every word serves a purpose, and the em-dash separates the core function from the use case effectively.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description gives a clear purpose and use case. However, it omits what fields are returned (beyond implying IDs) and does not mention the query parameter or any filtering behavior, leaving some gaps for a complete understanding.

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 schema describes the single 'query' parameter as a substring filter on name or email (client-side), covering 100% of the parameter meaning. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as listing users in the workspace, with a specific resource and action. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_contacts by specifying the use case of discovering assigned_to_id values for tasks, and provides an example question.

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 states when to use the tool ('use to discover assigned_to_id values for tasks') and gives an example query. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use it, though the use case is clear enough.

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