cipp_list_enterprise_apps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: cross-tenant fan-out with error handling (403 returns as error row instead of failing), default exclusion of Microsoft-built-in apps, and the ability to include them. This is detailed and honest about how the tool operates.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding usage details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 no output schema, the description lists the returned fields (appId, displayName, publisher, etc.). It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and special behavior (cross-tenant fan-out, error handling, default exclusions). No critical gaps remain for this tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: for tenantFilter, it clarifies 'Tenant domain name or ID' and the special value 'allTenants'; for includeBuiltIn, it explains the default (false) and what gets included. This enriches understanding.

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 tool lists enterprise applications (service principals) in a tenant, including third-party SaaS apps integrated via OAuth. It specifies the returned fields (appId, displayName, etc.). There are no sibling tools with overlapping functionality, so it is unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (listing enterprise apps) and how to use it with tenantFilter='allTenants' for cross-tenant fan-out. It also notes the default exclusion of Microsoft-built-in apps and the includeBuiltIn parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternative tools, but given the context, no direct alternative exists.

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