foundry_list_users

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds value by noting that GM access and user:read scope are required, plus clientId auto-resolution for scoped keys. This goes beyond the annotation to inform the agent about authorization and parameter behavior.

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 with no wasted words; action, output fields, and requirements are front-loaded in a clear structure.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, output fields, permission requirements, and parameter behavior. No output schema exists, but the return fields are enumerated, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers clientId fully, and the description adds the auto-resolution behavior for scoped keys. With 100% schema coverage, this extra context elevates the score above the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states it lists Foundry users with specified output fields (id, name, role, isGM, active, avatar), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like foundry_list_clients which list clients, not users.

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: it lists users and specifies required permissions (relay scope user:read and GM access). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource is unambiguous and prerequisites are stated.

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