List Tenants

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool reads from config.json, which signals a local, read-only operation. However, it does not mention behavior such as error handling when config.json is missing, whether the list is sorted, or whether any network call is involved.

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, well-formed sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the source location is provided compactly at the end. Every word contributes to understanding.

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, zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies what is listed and where the data comes from. Minor missing context includes prerequisites and potential failure cases, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is already complete and there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 ('List'), a resource ('configured SentinelOne tenants'), and the data source ('config.json'). It is immediately clear what the tool does and it is distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which perform tenant listing.

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 implies the tool's use case: retrieving the set of tenants already configured in config.json, likely before performing tenant-scoped operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as config.json needing to exist or be populated.

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