list_principals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but lacks details on authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The limit/offset parameters in the schema hint at pagination, but the description does not add context.

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, which is front-loaded, but it lacks structure and detail. It is not verbose, but it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and 0% parameter coverage in schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, pagination mechanics, or search behavior, leaving significant gaps for agent usage.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (limit, offset, search). The description adds no value beyond parameter names, leaving the 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'users and groups that can be used for project memberships', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users and list_groups by specifying the context of project membership eligibility.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_users, list_groups, or list_project_memberships. Even though the context of 'project memberships' is hinted, there is no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice.

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