list_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, and since it has no parameters, it is safe to assume no side effects. However, the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or describe any potential response characteristics, though for a simple list this is minimally sufficient.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. The key information (list all users, workspace scope) is front-loaded and immediately actionable. There is zero wasted verbosity.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the purpose and invoke it correctly. It does not mention the exact shape of the response (e.g., user fields), but that is not essential for a basic listing operation. The description sufficiently covers what the tool does.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is required. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any missing schema information.

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 action (list), the resource (users), and the scope (all users in the Kaiten workspace). It fully distinguishes itself from siblings like get_current_user by specifying 'all users', so an agent knows exactly what to expect.

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 purpose implies usage for retrieving all users, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_current_user for a single user. No context or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer the intended scope.

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