List assignments targeting All Devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: pagination via an opaque continuation cursor, nextCursor for full coverage, and that resultCount/pageSummary/graphUsage are scoped to the current call. It also clarifies 'directly target' implies only direct assignments, going beyond structured metadata.

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 open with the core purpose, then gives a targeted usage hint, and follows with result fields and pagination semantics. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description covers pagination, result field types, category usage, and current-call result scoping effectively. It omits semantics for limit and platform, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to enumerate return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a read-only listing tool.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the 'category' parameter for application queries and mentions the cursor concept (though not the parameter name), but 'limit' and 'platform' are left completely undocumented. Partial compensation only.

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 it lists policies and applications directly targeting All Devices, using a specific verb and resource with a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_all_user_assignments by focusing on the 'All Devices' target.

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?

It provides clear contextual guidance: for apps assigned to All Devices, set category to application. The 'All Devices' scope separates it from user-based sibling tools, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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