inforcer_tenants_list

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

The description repeats the readOnlyHint annotation by saying 'Read-only,' and no behavioral context beyond that is added (no return shape, pagination, or side effects). It is consistent with the annotation, so there is no contradiction, but the description contributes little extra transparency.

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 entire description is two short sentences with no filler. 'List all managed tenants' front-loads the core action, and 'Read-only' adds important safety information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 parameterless list operation, the description conveys the essential purpose and safety profile. It does not describe the return format or address the openWorldHint annotation, but these are minor for a simple 'list all' tool with no input parameters.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. This matches the baseline for no-parameter tools: the description cannot be expected to document parameters that do not exist.

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') and resource ('all managed tenants'), making the tool's scope immediate and unambiguous. The word 'all' differentiates it from sibling tools like inforcer_tenants_get and inforcer_tenants_resolve, which operate on individual tenants.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need the full collection of managed tenants rather than a single tenant or a resolution. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the description and sibling names.

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