knowbe4_users_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are paginated and lists the returned fields (email, name, risk score, department), which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what happens with no results. The pagination and field disclosure add moderate value but leave 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?

The description is compact at two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. The mention of returned fields is useful and the pagination note is relevant. No wasted words. Could arguably add a third sentence on usage boundaries but remains 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?

This is a straightforward listing tool with all 4 parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema required. The description covers the core purpose, filtering options, pagination behavior, and returned fields. For a list operation of this simplicity, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention how it differs from the user-get and groups-members siblings.

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 100%, with all 4 parameters documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema - it mentions filtering by status or group (mapping to status and group_id params) but doesn't add format details, default behaviors beyond what schema notes, or interaction between params like whether status and group_id can combine. Schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List KnowBe4 users') with clear scope (optional filtering by status or group). It's distinct from sibling tools which target training, phishing, or group-specific operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from knowbe4_groups_members or knowbe4_users_get, though the listing vs. single/get distinction is implicit.

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 mentions optional filtering by status or group, giving some context for when these filters apply. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like knowbe4_groups_members or knowbe4_users_get, nor does it note any pagination usage patterns like how to iterate through pages.

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