list_all_tenancy

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 mentions a requirement ('azurehound') but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—such as whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output is in, if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 very short with two phrases, which is efficient, but it lacks structure and could be more informative. While it's not verbose, the under-specification means it doesn't fully earn its place—it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming wordy. It's concise but not optimally helpful.

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 sibling tools (e.g., Azure/AD security tools) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a requirement but doesn't explain what 'Tenancy' means, what the output looks like, or how this tool fits into the broader context of security assessments. For a tool in this domain, more contextual information is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter info.

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 the resource 'all Tenancy', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_aad_groups_synchronized_with_ad' or 'list_all_ad_principals_with_edges_to_azure_principals' that also list Azure/AD-related entities, leaving room for confusion about what exactly 'Tenancy' refers to in this context.

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 includes a prerequisite 'Required: azurehound', which provides some context on when this tool might be needed, but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_principals_with_azure_tenancy_access' or other Azure-related listing tools. There's no explicit when/when-not usage advice or sibling tool comparisons.

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