list_own_en_usrs_local_adm_sess

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential performance impact, or how results are formatted (e.g., pagination). The description is insufficient for a tool that likely queries sensitive directory data.

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 that front-loads all key information: listing, resource type, and additional data. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.

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, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'owned' means in context, how sessions are determined as 'active', what format the output takes, or provide any behavioral context. The description leaves too many gaps for effective tool 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 with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what format the domain should be in, whether it's required for all queries, or provide examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 specifies the resource as 'owned & enabled user(s) with "Local Admin" permission' along with additional data about 'active sessions and their group membership(s)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users' by adding the local admin filter and session information, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 for 'owned' users, or differentiate from similar tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin' or 'list_all_principals_with_local_admin_permission', leaving the agent to infer usage.

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