list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. The description only repeats the tool's core function without adding operational context.

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 just one sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded despite its minimalism.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'enabled' or 'non-privileged' mean operationally, how RDP permission is determined, what the output format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. The single required 'domain' parameter receives no explanation in the description about its format, purpose, or acceptable values. This leaves the agent guessing about proper parameter 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 clearly states the action ('List') and target ('enabled non-privileged user(s) with "RDP" permission'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'list_all_principals_with_rdp_permission' by specifying 'enabled non-privileged users', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp_and_sessions' which adds session information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with similar tools like 'list_all_principals_with_rdp_permission' or 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp_and_sessions'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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