watchguardcloud_list_operators

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns the list of operators with role/MFA status and is read-only by the verb 'List'. However, it does not mention pagination, required permissions, response format, or potential errors, leaving some gaps for a fully transparent read operation.

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, direct sentence that immediately states the action and object. It contains no filler, and every phrase ('every operator', 'role/MFA status', 'for a WatchGuard Cloud account') adds necessary scope or context.

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 operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough conceptual detail: it names the resource, the scope, and the specific fields returned. It does not describe pagination or navigation, and there are no annotations or output schema to fill those gaps, but the core invocation context is clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by mapping the sole parameter to 'a WatchGuard Cloud account', clarifying that accountId identifies the target account. However, it does not explain the format of accountId, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond being a string.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('operator (user) account') and further specifies what is returned (role/MFA status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_managed_accounts (which lists accounts, not operators) and the create/update/delete operator tools.

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 this tool should be used when you need to enumerate operators and their role/MFA status for a WatchGuard Cloud account. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as using list_managed_accounts for sub-accounts or get_operator_transaction_status for operation status.

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