List Users

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: no pagination, no server-side filtering, suitability constraints, and a token-denial fallback. It does not detail response shape or verbosity semantics, but the safety profile is well covered.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, followed by scope caveats and downstream usage. Every sentence contributes to correct selection or invocation.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, scope, safety, and related tools well. The main gap is that with no output schema it does not clarify what each verbosity level returns or the exact user object fields, though the mention of IDs partially compensates.

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 single verbosity parameter is documented with an enum and a default, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the full company user list.' It also states the no-pagination/no-filtering scope, which distinguishes it from space-scoped siblings like kaiten_list_space_users and from kaiten_get_current_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?

It explicitly limits usage to small workspaces, warns about the lack of pagination and filtering, and provides a concrete fallback to kaiten_get_current_user when /users is denied. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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