kaiten_list_users

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the downstream purpose of the returned IDs and says nothing about paging over large user lists or whether the query matches names, emails, or both.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, stating verb, resource, and purpose. It is appropriately sized, though the single clause leaves little room for the missing paging and matching detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a paginated, open-world search tool the description never mentions paging behavior or what the query matches against, leaving gaps an agent must discover by trial.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it identifies only the 'query' filter semantically ('by query') and gives no meaning for limit or offset. Coverage of 1 of 3 parameters is weak compensation for an entirely undocumented schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('company users'), plus the downstream purpose of obtaining user IDs for ownership and membership, which separates it from kaiten_get_current_user (single user). It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'to obtain user IDs for ownership and membership' hints at when an agent would call it (before kaiten_add_card_member or setting ownership). There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of an unfiltered listing mode, and no named alternative such as kaiten_get_current_user for the current user case.

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