get_owned_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the set of object categories that can be returned, which is useful scoping context, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or whether results are truncated.

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?

A single compact sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps too terse for the amount of undocumented behavior, but nothing is wasted.

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 two undocumented parameters, the description should at minimum explain the identifier format, the limit's effect, and whether results are paginated. None of this is present, leaving the agent under-equipped for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and does not: user_identifier's expected format (UPN vs. object ID) is unstated, and the limit parameter (default 100) is never mentioned at all. Only the vague phrase 'de um usuário' hints at user_identifier.

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 names a specific resource set (Groups, Applications, Service Principals, Agents, Blueprints) and scopes it to objects owned by a user, so the agent knows what comes back. However, the verb is implicit (no 'list'/'retrieve') and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_agents_by_owner or list_objects_without_owner.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_agents_by_owner, which covers an overlapping subset of these objects. The agent must infer usage entirely from the scope phrase.

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