list_all_principals_with_local_admin_permission

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps 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 extremely concise with a single, clear sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. This is appropriate for a simple-sounding tool, though it may sacrifice detail for brevity.

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 complexity implied by the sibling tools (e.g., security/permission-related operations), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details about behavior, parameters, and differentiation from alternatives, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. It doesn't explain what 'domain' refers to (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain) or how it affects the listing. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all principal(s) with "Local Admin" permission'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin' or 'users_with_most_local_admin_rights', which appear to have overlapping scopes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that seem related to local admin permissions (e.g., 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin', 'users_with_most_local_admin_rights'), there is no indication of how this tool differs in scope, filtering, or context.

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