list_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that only active users are returned, that the query filter is optional and case-insensitive, and that it searches over both name and email. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but for a simple read-only list tool the provided behavior is sufficient.

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 two efficient sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds the assignee integration and the query semantics. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the scope, the filter behavior, and how the results relate to other tools, so an agent has enough context to call it 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 provides only the type and default for `query` with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by defining it as an optional, case-insensitive substring filter over name and email, which is exactly the semantic detail needed to use the parameter properly.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List active Linear users.' It also specifies the output shape as {name, email}, and identifies the specific role of `name` for create_issue/update_issue, which distinguishes it from the other list tools like list_teams or list_labels.

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 a concrete usage context: the returned `name` field is the display name accepted by create_issue and update_issue for `assignee`. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the practical connection to the issue-editing tools gives clear guidance.

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