knowbe4_phishing_security_test_recipients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description notes it 'Shows which users clicked, opened, reported, or were otherwise affected' — giving some return-content preview. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, whether this is a read-only safe operation, rate limits, or required permissions. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, more context would be expected.

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 compact two-sentence definition with minimal waste. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and output nature without unnecessary elaboration. Could arguably be slightly more explicit about usage context, but it's appropriately sized for its scope.

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?

For a list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description does its job of clarifying purpose. However, no output schema exists, so the description doesn't explain return formatting or result structure beyond 'which users clicked, opened, reported'. The tool has 29 siblings in a large KnowBe4 API surface, so more disambiguation detail would help selection.

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%, so the schema documents all 3 parameters well (pst_id, page, per_page each have descriptions). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides, which is why baseline 3 applies. The behavioral description of what results show (clicked/opened/reported) adds value in understanding what the data represents.

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 is clear: 'Get recipient-level results for a specific PST' uses a specific verb+resource pattern. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'knowbe4_phishing_security_test_get' (which is a singular test details endpoint, vs this listing recipients). The mention of clicked/opened/reported adds specificity about what recipient data includes.

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 implies usage context (recipient-level results for a PST) which distinguishes it from campaign-level tools, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs sibling 'knowbe4_phishing_security_test_recipient' (which appears to be a singular version of the same). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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