list_admins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that passwords are redacted and enumerates some returned fields, but it does not state read-only behavior, authorization requirements, pagination, or multi-VDOM 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 efficient sentence with the resource and notable output details front-loaded. The parenthetical about redacted passwords is relevant and no sentence 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?

For a simple two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough context about what is returned and the sensitive-data handling. The main remaining gap is how the optional vdom parameter scopes the listing.

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 100%, so both device_id and vdom are documented structurally. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, such as how vdom scoping affects results; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries this load.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'List administrator accounts', and names the fields returned (profile, trusted hosts, two-factor settings). It is distinguishable from generic user-listing siblings by focusing on administrators, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby tools like list_api_users or list_local_users.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It relies entirely on the tool name and 'List' verb to imply it is a read operation, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferable to related user or admin tools.

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