List users (cross-organization)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output structure (id, identity, hasFullAccess) and the allOrganizations sweeping behavior. However, it doesn't mention edge cases like pagination limits, error behavior, or whether organization parameters are mutually exclusive. This is adequate but has gaps.

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, zero fluff. First sentence states purpose; second adds return shape and a tips. Perfectly front-loaded and economical.

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 has 6 parameters and no output schema, so description must compensate. It does explain return fields and the allOrganizations use case, but leaves ambiguity around the interplay between organization, organizations, and allOrganizations (e.g., mutually exclusive? precedence?). No mention of maxItems behavior. Moderate completeness for a simple list tool.

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 83% (5/6 params described). The description adds value by explaining allOrganizations with a usage example, but doesn't cover maxItems (which lacks schema description). Since the schema does most heavy lifting, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't significantly elevate it.

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's function: 'List users in one or many organizations.' It specifies the resource (users), the action (list), and scope (one/many orgs). It also provides the return shape (id, identity, hasFullAccess), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wflow_get_user (single user) and wflow_find_users_with_right (filter by right).

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 gives clear context for using allOrganizations: 'Use `allOrganizations` to sweep every org (e.g. to find where a user exists)' — a concrete use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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