list_enabled_principals_with_constrained_delegation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'enabled' and 'Constrained Delegation' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it's safe to run, output format, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about the tool's 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 extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to scan. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 (security tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and usage context. For a tool that likely interacts with sensitive systems like Active Directory, more guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter ('domain') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain name), its format, or examples. This leaves the parameter semantics unclear, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the target ('enabled principal(s) with "Constrained Delegation"'), which is a specific security-related resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_enabled_principals_with_unconstrained_delegation' by specifying the delegation type, though it could be more explicit about what 'principals' encompass (e.g., users, computers).

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. While the name implies it's for listing principals with constrained delegation, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., domain context), contrast with similar tools like 'list_enabled_principals_with_unconstrained_delegation', or indicate typical use cases (e.g., security auditing).

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