entitlement_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing pagination, the 'teaching 404' error on wrong pool IDs, and the target source from config.yaml. No contradictions with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with [READ] and the core purpose. The subsequent lines add only high-value context (pagination, 404 behavior, pool_id source) and a clear Args list. No filler or redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and the sibling tool ecosystem, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers read-only semantics, pagination, error behavior, parameter meanings, and points to pool_list for correct IDs. Users know what to pass and what to expect.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates with an Args section. It explains pool_id as 'from pool_list', limit as page size with default 50, offset as page offset, and target as a Horizon target from config.yaml. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 '[READ] List the AD users/groups entitled to a desktop pool', giving a specific verb, resource, and clear meaning ('who can access it'). It also distinguishes from siblings like entitlement_add/entitlement_remove and cross-references pool_list for pool IDs.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to see who can access a pool) and provides an important alternative: 'Use pool_list for pool ids.' It also notes pagination and error behavior for wrong pool IDs. It doesn't explicitly discuss exclusions vs. entitlement_add/remove, but gives enough context to be useful.

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