entitlement_list

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

Annotations already cover non-destructiveness and idempotency. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: pagination, the 'teaching 404' error detail, and the target parameter's default behavior from config.yaml.

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 well-structured: a [READ] tag, a one-line purpose, a brief error note, and a clean argument list. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, pagination, error behavior, and the source of pool ids. It is complete for a straightforward list operation of this complexity.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the Args section provides meaningful explanations for every parameter, including defaults and the source for pool_id. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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') and resource ('AD users/groups entitled to a desktop pool'), with a parenthetical clarification of who can access it. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like entitlement_add/entitlement_remove.

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 an explicit cross-reference to pool_list for obtaining pool ids and opens with [READ] to signal a read-only operation. It doesn't explicitly exclude mutation tools, but the read-only prefix and sibling names make the intended use clear.

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