get_owned_objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and consistency profile. The description adds useful context about the object types and the user-centric scope, but it does not disclose behavior such as pagination, ordering, empty results, or how ownership is determined. It adds moderate value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise sentence that lists the relevant object types and the scope in a compact form. The 'Ownership 360' branding adds little functional value but does not create significant noise. It is front-loaded with the key concept and avoids 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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it only lists object categories without describing return shape, pagination, or error behavior. There is also no guidance on the required user_identifier format, which is critical for correct invocation. For a tool with simple inputs but many siblings, this description leaves important gaps.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'um usuário' (a user), which maps to user_identifier, but does not explain whether the identifier is an email, UPN, object ID, or display name. The limit parameter is entirely unexplained beyond its name, leaving an agent to guess semantics.

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 returns objects (Groups, Applications, Service Principals, Agents, Blueprints) under a user's responsibility, which matches the tool name. It identifies the resource scope but lacks an explicit verb, relying on the name 'get'. It partially distinguishes from siblings like get_agents_by_owner and list_objects_without_owner by covering multiple object types, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools such as get_agents_by_owner, identity_360, or list_objects_without_owner. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or conditions. An agent would have to infer appropriateness from the name and context.

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