List assignments targeting All Users

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

Given readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint are already declared, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: pagination semantics, opaque continuation cursor, and the caveat that resultCount/pageSummary/graphUsage only cover the current call. This is valuable beyond the annotations.

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?

Three purposeful sentences with no filler. Scope is front-loaded and pagination details are succinctly placed at the end. Every sentence adds information.

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?

The description provides the operation scope, category-specific use, and pagination behavior, plus the key output fields. With the output schema present and simple parameters, no critical aspects of correct usage are missing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the category parameter's meaning and the continuation cursor's purpose, but does not describe the limit parameter or explicitly map the input cursor to the returned nextCursor. Partial compensation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Lists') and a concrete resource ('policies and applications that directly target All Users'), plus a distinguishing scope. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_all_device_assignments and get_policy_assignments.

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 explicit guidance for one key decision: 'For questions about apps assigned to All Users, set category to application.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scope statement makes the intended use obvious.

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