map_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. It discloses that the tool loads all SN users/groups into memory, resolves users, and returns a match report. It does not explicitly indicate whether it is read-only or its performance impact, but the main behaviors are 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 sentences front-load the action, then describe output and usage. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to call it. It could mention the heavy load of loading all users/groups, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a preparatory tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by tying the parameters to the resolution process (e.g., 'fallsback user' relates to fallback_user_email) and explaining the output, which is not in the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: loads ServiceNow users and groups, then resolves source-platform users to sys_ids. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling migration tools that perform other actions like creating records or running migrations.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this before running a migration that has assignee / owner / reporter fields,' which provides clear guidance on when to use. It does not include explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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