User list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about visibility scope and the active/inactive default, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or fields included in the response. This is similar to other list tools where annotations cover safety but response details remain unspecified.

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 deliver the tool's purpose, scope, relationship to other tools, and the single parameter's behavior with no wasted wording. The key usage context is front-loaded.

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 the essential invocation details: visibility scope, default active-only behavior, and how to include inactive users. It does not describe the response shape beyond mentioning user_id values, and there is no output schema, so a little more detail about returned fields could make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes include_inactive, but the description adds the crucial default behavior ('Active users by default') and clarifies that include_inactive = true includes deactivated users. This goes beyond the schema's brief 'Also list inactive users'.

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 identifies the tool as a user-listing operation with a specific scope ('visibility scope of the token owner') and explicitly frames it as the source of user_id values for other tools. This makes its purpose distinct from sibling tools that list time entries, projects, or requests.

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?

It states when to use the tool: as the source of user_id values for other tools, and clarifies the default behavior for active users versus the include_inactive flag for deactivated users. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for exclusion, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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