List User Direct Reports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the permission requirement ('delegated User.Read.All'), which is a key constraint. However, it does not describe the return format, error behavior, or pagination details beyond what the schema's 'top' parameter implies. For a simple list operation, this is moderate but not exhaustive.

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 plus a bilingual intent list. The core action is front-loaded, and the permission note and Chinese equivalents add value without unnecessary fluff. Every part earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the operation and permission, and the schema fully documents the inputs. It does not explicitly describe the return value structure, but for a list operation the intent is clear from the name and description. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly in most cases.

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%, with both 'top' and 'userIdOrPrincipalName' having clear descriptions in the input schema. The description text adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it relies on the schema to explain the parameters.

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's function: 'List direct reports for the signed-in user or another organization user.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('direct reports'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like users_list, users_get_manager, and users_list_memberships by focusing specifically on direct reports. The inclusion of Chinese intents further clarifies the intended use cases.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever direct reports of a user are needed. It also mentions a prerequisite ('Requires delegated User.Read.All'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for related queries (e.g., users_list for all users, users_get_manager for a manager), so the guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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