umbrella_appdiscovery_app_identities

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, but 'List the identities observed' only conveys that this is a read-style operation. It does not disclose pagination defaults, behavior for an invalid/unknown appId, data freshness, or whether results are complete or sampled. No contradiction exists (no annotations), but the behavioral surface is largely undisclosed.

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 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object and adds a parenthetical clarifying the identity concept. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, restatement of the tool name, or redundant schema repetition.

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 relatively simple list tool the description is adequate, and the schema fully documents all four parameters including the additionalParams escape hatch. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves gaps an agent would need to fill by trial: the response shape, default/effective pagination, and the operational context linking this to the app-discovery workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema: 'specific discovered application' reinforces that appId refers to an app-discovery record, which the schema already states as 'Discovered application ID.' It does not illuminate limit/offset behavior or how additionalParams is meant to be used, but the schema already documents those adequately.

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 a specific verb (List), a resource (identities, clarified as users/devices), and a precise scope (observed using a specific discovered application). This differentiates it from siblings like umbrella_appdiscovery_applications (lists apps, not identities) and umbrella_identities (would list identities generally, not per-app).

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name any sibling, state a prerequisite (e.g., that appId must come from a prior app-discovery lookup), or explain when this would be preferred over umbrella_identities or umbrella_appdiscovery_applications. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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