list_principals_with_azure_tenancy_access

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a prerequisite ('azurehound'), which adds some context about dependencies, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what 'privileged access' entails, potential rate limits, output format, or any destructive effects. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent beyond the basic action.

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 concise with two key pieces of information: the action and a prerequisite. However, it includes '[WIP]' which is unnecessary noise and detracts from clarity. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the overall brevity borders on under-specification given the lack of behavioral details.

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 the tool name (involving Azure Tenancy and privileged access), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'privileged access' means, the scope of listing (e.g., all principals vs. filtered), output format, or any behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for, but it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond what the schema implies.

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 all principal(s)') and the target ('with privileged access to Azure Tenancy'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_owned_users_with_azure_tenancy_access' or 'list_all_principals_with_edges_to_azure_principals', which might cover similar or overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest score for sibling distinction.

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 for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'find_owned_users_with_azure_tenancy_access' for owned users only) or any exclusions, leaving usage implied rather than clearly defined.

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