cipp_list_users

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'List users', which is a read operation, but omits details like pagination, search behavior, or potential performance impact. The agent gets no insight beyond the basic 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 concise (4 words), but it sacrifices informativeness. It lacks structure and does not effectively use the available space to convey key constraints or features. While not verbose, it is under-specified.

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 absence of an output schema and the existence of optional search parameters, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention that users can be searched by specific attributes, which is a important capability for an agent deciding how to use the 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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the tool description adds no extra value. The schema clearly defines 'searchField', 'searchValue', and 'tenantFilter'. Baseline score of 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'users in a tenant', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It effectively distinguishes from sibling list tools like 'cipp_list_groups' or 'cipp_list_tenants'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cipp_list_audit_logs' or 'cipp_list_mfa_users'). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context-specific usage.

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