list_all_principals_with_rdp_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('List'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not cover critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, output format, or whether it returns all principals or is paginated. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding tool 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be improved by adding necessary details without sacrificing brevity. The structure is clear, though minimalistic.

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 complexity (listing principals with a specific permission), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, parameter meaning, or output details, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. More context is needed to compensate for the missing structured information.

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 input schema has one parameter 'domain' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate by providing any semantic context, such as what 'domain' refers to or how it affects the listing. This leaves the parameter undocumented and unclear in usage.

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 'List all principal(s) with "RDP" permission' clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'principal(s)', specifying the permission type 'RDP'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp' or 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_rdp_and_sessions', making the purpose somewhat vague in context. It avoids tautology by not restating the name exactly, but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.

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, such as distinguishing it from sibling tools that list RDP-related principals with additional filters (e.g., non-privileged users or those with sessions). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving usage unclear. It implies a general listing but offers no explicit direction.

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