umbrella_identities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include traffic summaries and that filtering occurs, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not mention the additionalParams escape hatch, any side effects (none likely), or potential response size concerns. It also does not clarify that this is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'List'. Overall, it adds some behavioral context but is not thorough.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the identity types in parentheses. Every word contributes, with no fluff or repetition. It is concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a required array parameter, an escape hatch (additionalParams) that allows arbitrary query parameters, and no output schema. The description does not mention additionalParams at all, which is a significant capability an agent would need to know about. It also does not explain how this tool relates to the many sibling list tools, leaving the agent to infer when to use it. For a tool with this complexity and competition, the description is insufficiently complete.

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 schema already documents all parameters including the required identityTypes and the purpose of limit/offset. The description only mentions 'filtered by one or more identity types', which aligns with the schema's identityTypes description but adds no new semantics. It does not elaborate on additionalParams, but since the schema covers it, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists identities with traffic summaries and filters by identity type. It enumerates the specific identity types (roaming computers, networks, mobile devices, AD users), which directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like umbrella_list_roaming_computers or umbrella_list_networks that focus on a single type.

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 a flexible, type-filtered listing but does not explicitly say when to choose this over the dedicated sibling tools. It mentions filtering by one or more types, which suggests a use case for mixed or multiple types, but there is no explicit guidance such as 'use this instead of umbrella_list_roaming_computers for combined queries'. The context is implied, not stated.

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