List service principals with Dataverse access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the underlying command ('pac admin list-service-principal') and that it runs against the active pac auth profile, which hints at a read operation and its auth dependency. However, it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or the effect of the max/filter parameters on output.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines the resource, the second anchors the underlying command and auth context. Front-loaded and waste-free, with only mild redundancy around the auth profile.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description explains what the tool conceptually returns but omits any sense of output shape or pagination behavior. For a six-parameter list tool, it is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the auth-profile behavior ('with the active pac auth profile'), adding no meaningful semantics beyond what the schema's 'profile' description already provides.

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 resource (Entra applications with an application user in Dataverse) and clarifies the concept (apps that act without a person signing in), plus the underlying command. It is clear what the tool lists, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cs_admin_list_applications or cs_admin_create_service_principal beyond the verb 'list'.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cs_admin_list_applications (Entra app registrations) or cs_admin_register_application. Usage is only implied by the resource name; no preconditions or exclusions are given.

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