zdx_list_application_users

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

The description confirms the read-only nature (consistent with annotations) and adds details about curated rows and the triage-row format. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint.

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 concise, with two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure (triage rows with id, name, email, score). It does not mention the `query` parameter, but since the schema documents it, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides adequate context for a listing 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?

With only 14% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by naming and explaining key filter parameters (score_bucket, location, department, geo, since) and their types (e.g., 'HOURS window'). This compensates for the sparse schema documentation.

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 lists users/devices that accessed a ZDX application, provides specific fields returned (id, name, email, ZDX score), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the follow-up tool `zdx_get_application_user`.

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 explains filtering options (score_bucket, location, department, geo, since) and provides a default window (2h). It also tells how to use the returned `id` with another tool. While it could explicitly say when not to use this tool, the context is clear.

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