list_identities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions optional filtering and the return fields (identity ID, name, email, lifecycle state, manager information), but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key details like filtering and return fields. There is no wasted language, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for its purpose.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return fields, but lacks behavioral context like permissions or error handling, and doesn't fully compensate for the absence of an output schema or annotations.

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 the schema fully documents the four parameters (limit, offset, filters, sorters). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of filter expressions or sorters, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('List identities') and resource ('in SailPoint'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_identity' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple identities, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_accounts' or 'list_roles' beyond the resource type.

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 usage through 'with optional filtering,' suggesting it's for retrieving multiple identities with potential constraints. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search' or 'get_identity,' nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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