Farm Administrators

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world operation, covering key safety traits. The description adds value by clarifying the tool's focus on administrative accounts and its use for auditing purposes, which provides context beyond annotations. No contradictions exist, as listing aligns with read-only behavior.

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 concise and well-structured, using two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's function and use cases without unnecessary details. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action and data, and the second provides practical applications, making it front-loaded and waste-free.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete, covering purpose and usage. However, it could slightly enhance completeness by mentioning the return format (e.g., list of administrators) or any limitations, though annotations already provide safety context, making this a minor gap.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool without redundancy.

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 specific action ('List RAS farm administrator accounts') and resource ('administrator accounts'), distinguishing it from siblings like ras_farm_get_config or ras_farm_get_licensing by focusing on administrative personnel rather than configuration or licensing data. It specifies the data returned (usernames, roles, permissions, group membership), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to audit admin access, verify role assignments, or review who has administrative control of the farm'), which helps the agent understand appropriate scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as ras_policies_list for policy-related audits, leaving some room for improvement.

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