stalwart_list_principals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes the use of the standard JMAP principals namespace, but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, how pagination works (beyond limit), or what the response looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, a protocol note, and an Args section. Every line adds value, with no padding or redundancy.

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 two-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain how results are ordered, whether all types are included when no principal_type is given, or how this tool relates to sibling list tools. The output schema presumably covers return values, but some contextual gaps remain.

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 schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does by enumerating all accepted principal_type values (individual, group, list, domain, tenant, role, apiKey, oauthClient, resource, location) and explaining limit as max rows with a default. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.

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 principals and enumerates the types (users/groups/lists/domains/roles/tenants). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_accounts or list_domains.

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 parenthetical list of principal types implies that this tool is the broad listing tool for all principal kinds, while siblings like list_accounts or list_domains cover specific subsets. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the guidance mostly implied.

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