kaiten_list_sd_requests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination behaves, response shape, or any rate-limit/scope constraints. Only the limit/offset parameter names hint at pagination; the description itself adds no behavioral context.

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 efficient sentence with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness. Every word earns its place, so the structure is sound.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only context, yet it explains nothing about return values, pagination defaults, or what constitutes a Service Desk request. Given a large sibling family including get/create/update/delete/list variants, the definition is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke it with confidence. The schema-complete parameters are the only thing preventing a lower score.

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 100%, with all three parameters (limit, query, offset) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable because the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 applies since the description neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Service Desk requests'), making the primary action unambiguous. The resource is distinct from the many sibling tools such as kaiten_list_sd_services, kaiten_get_sd_request, and kaiten_create_sd_request, so an agent can tell it apart at a glance. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, which is the only thing keeping it from 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kaiten_get_sd_request (fetch one request) or kaiten_list_sd_services (list services rather than requests). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual signals stated. An agent must infer selection purely from the tool name and sibling list.

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