list_objects_without_owner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail of which object classes are scanned, but says nothing about return shape, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with the enumeration in parentheses — no filler. It is tight, though the parenthetical list is the only substance beyond the name.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description identifies the scope well but leaves the agent without return-format, ordering, or pagination context, and the lone limit parameter is entirely unexplained.

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% and there is one parameter (limit, default 200) that the description never mentions. With low coverage the description should compensate by explaining what limit controls and what happens when it is omitted or exceeded; it does neither.

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?

Names a specific verb (Lista) and resource (objetos sem owner) and enumerates the object types covered (Groups, Applications, Service Principals, Agents, Blueprints). This implicitly distinguishes it from the narrower sibling list_applications_without_owners, though the overlap is never called out explicitly.

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 prerequisite or scope note, and no mention of the closely overlapping sibling list_applications_without_owners that would let an agent choose between them. Usage is only inferable from the name and enumeration.

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