list_enabled_principals_with_unconstrained_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 listing enabled principals with a specific delegation type, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical 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 a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (security-focused listing with specific delegation criteria), no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively in relation to its many siblings.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 1 parameter (domain) and 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'domain' means in this context, its format, or examples. This leaves the parameter poorly documented.

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 states the tool lists enabled principals with 'Unconstrained Delegation', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_principals_with_constrained_delegation' or other principal-listing tools, making it somewhat vague about its unique scope.

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. With many sibling tools listing principals, users, or groups, there's no indication of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's use.

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