get_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('retrieves user information') without any information about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, error conditions, or what format the returned data takes. For a data retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient 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?

The description is extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose but lacks supporting details.

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 that this is a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what user information is returned, in what format, whether there are permission requirements, or how to handle the optional parameter effectively. The description provides only the most basic purpose statement without the context needed for effective tool use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'codes' parameter clearly documented as optional with its behavior explained. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps because there are none in the schema documentation.

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 states the tool's purpose ('ユーザー情報を取得します' - 'retrieves user information') which is clear but generic. It specifies the resource (kintone users) but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_groups' or 'get_group_users' that also retrieve user-related information. The description is accurate but lacks specificity about what makes this tool unique.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that retrieve user-related data (get_groups, get_group_users, get_space_members), but the description doesn't help the agent understand when this specific user retrieval tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. No usage context or exclusions are mentioned.

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