list_owned

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly suggests a read-only listing operation via 'List', but does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness, authentication requirements, or whether the result set is limited to specific principal types. This is acceptable for a simple list tool, but lacks added clarity beyond the name.

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 no filler or redundant details. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has no parameters, an output schema exists, and it is a straightforward listing operation, the description provides sufficient context for basic understanding. It does not elaborate on the concept of 'owned' or return value structure, but the output schema and sibling tools help fill gaps, and the simplicity of the tool reduces the burden on the description.

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 takes zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4.

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 'List principals currently marked as owned' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('principals marked as owned'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mark_owned' or 'paths_from_owned', though the distinction is easily inferred.

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 implies usage—use this tool to see which principals are currently owned—but provides no explicit context for when to choose it over alternatives. No when-to-use or exclusionary guidance is given, so it relies on the user to infer applicability.

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