List assignments targeting All Users

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses significant behavioral details: the returned fields (policyId, name, intent, filters, pageSummary, coverage) and pagination semantics ('resultCount, pageSummary, and graphUsage describe only the current tool call; follow nextCursor for complete coverage'). This is valuable context not present in structured fields.

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 sentences front-load the purpose, then provide a filtering tip, then list return fields and pagination guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler. The structure is logical and appropriately sized.

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 presence of an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool lists, how to filter, and how pagination works. It even explains the scoping of resultCount/pageSummary. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially against siblings with different scopes.

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 (set to 'application' for app-related queries) and implicitly the 'cursor' parameter via 'follow nextCursor'. However, the 'limit' and 'platform' parameters are not described or connected to intended usage, leaving their semantics partially ambiguous despite self-explanatory names.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Lists policies and applications that directly target All Users.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_all_device_assignments and list_unassigned_policies by scope (All Users) and resource types (policies/apps).

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 a clear use case: 'For questions about apps assigned to All Users, set category to application.' This gives concrete context for when the tool is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. The sibling names offer implicit differentiation, but the description itself could be more explicit about 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.