list_all_principals_with_sqladmin_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 it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a query against a database or active directory. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's 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 has no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or output format, nor does it explain the single required parameter. For a security/AD-related listing tool, this leaves too much unspecified for effective use.

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 1 parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain), its format, or how it affects the listing, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 "SQLAdmin" permission'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_sqladmin' by focusing on all principals rather than owned ones, though this differentiation isn't explicitly stated in the description itself.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_sqladmin' or 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_sqladmin', leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.

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