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 the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: default exclusion of Microsoft-built-in apps, the includeBuiltIn parameter, return fields (appId, displayName, etc.), and error handling for allTenants (403 returns as error row). This covers important behavioral traits comprehensively.

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, well-structured paragraph with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides necessary details about parameters and behavior, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (listing service principals with cross-tenant support), the description covers the main aspects: return fields, tenant filtering, default exclusion, and error handling. It lacks details on pagination or rate limits, but with no output schema and simple parameters, it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 100%, but the description adds meaningful context: it explains the purpose of tenantFilter (scope to a tenant or allTenants) and includeBuiltIn (default false, includes Microsoft-built-in apps when true), and elaborates on error handling for allTenants. This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 tool lists enterprise applications (service principals) in a tenant, including third-party OAuth-integrated apps. It specifies the resource type and differentiates from sibling tools that handle users, groups, or other objects.

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 (to list enterprise apps with third-party SaaS integration) and provides guidance on using tenantFilter='allTenants' for cross-tenant fan-out. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives.

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