roboshadow_get_device_users

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'PII-bearing' signals sensitive data handling, and 'admin-gated' indicates a privilege requirement. These go beyond the schema and help the agent anticipate access constraints. It does not cover failure modes or pagination, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately adding the important caveat about PII and admin access. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundant details.

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 simple list tool, the description covers the essential behavioral and data aspects: it lists what the output includes (email, employee ID, admin flag) and the access requirement. It lacks explicit return formatting or error handling, but given the small device-scoped output and the parameter schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond restating the device scope ('on one device'), which is also evident from the parameter name and schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'local/Active-Directory user accounts on one device', along with specific fields (email, employee ID, admin flag). It implicitly differentiates from organisation-level listing (e.g., roboshadow_list_organisation_users) by emphasizing 'on one device', making the tool's scope 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 implies usage (when you need user accounts for a specific device) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to choose this over a sibling like roboshadow_get_device_user_profiles or roboshadow_list_organisation_users, leaving the decision to inference.

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