kaiten_list_sd_users

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. It only states 'List Service Desk users' and does not reveal default behavior of the boolean flags (e.g., are paid users excluded by default?), pagination behavior, or result set semantics. A read operation with ambiguous filtering defaults is inadequately disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently sized for what it states, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful context for a 5-parameter tool.

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 five optional parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set that includes kaiten_list_users, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify the difference between SD users and regular users, explain the purpose of the include_* flags, or set expectations about the return shape.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters with brief but adequate descriptions ('Max results', 'Search filter', etc.). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List Service Desk users.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and the 'sd' in the tool name reinforces the resource scoping. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling kaiten_list_users, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kaiten_list_users, kaiten_update_sd_user, or kaiten_list_sd_organizations. The parameters suggest filtering workflows (query, include_paid_users, include_all_sd_users) but the description offers no context on when those would be needed.

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