list_pool_entitlements

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 states the output content (which users and groups are entitled) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, read-only nature, or any potential failures. Since this is a list operation, it likely is read-only, but that is not explicitly stated. The description adds some behavioral context via the output description but omits safety and side-effect information, making it only partially transparent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each with purpose. The first sentence states the primary action and scope, and the second sentence clarifies the output and directs to an alternative. Every word contributes to clarity, and the key information (purpose and usage guidance) is front-loaded. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it exemplary in conciseness and structure.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter with an enum, and an output schema provided), the description is complete for correct invocation. It details what the tool does, what it returns, and how it differs from the most relevant sibling. It does not need to explain return format because the output schema exists. There are no hidden prerequisites or complex behaviors; the description covers all necessary context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 already provides complete coverage for the only parameter, pool_type, including its enum values (desktop, application) and a short description 'Type of pool'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or nuance about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage (100%), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details but also adds no extra value.

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 lists entitlements for all pools of a given type, using the specific verb 'list' and resource 'entitlements for pools'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_pool_entitlement by noting that it covers all pools of a type, while the sibling handles a specific pool's details. The added line about returning which users and groups are entitled further clarifies the output, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 a clear usage context: 'List entitlements for all pools of the given type' and points to the alternative tool for specific pool details with 'Use get_pool_entitlement for a specific pool's details.' This effectively tells the agent when to choose this tool over its sibling. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., not for a specific pool) or mention other related tools like list_desktop_pools or list_application_pools, but given the clear distinction from the obvious alternative, it is adequately guided.

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