knowbe4_training_enrollments_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies this as a read operation ('List') but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, potential volume of results, or anything about the return format. For a list tool, this is modest but acceptable — the read-only nature is implied by 'List'.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose with zero filler. It avoids redundancy with the schema. Could arguably add sibling differentiation or usage context, but the brevity itself is a strength.

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 straightforward list tool with no output schema and two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essentials. It tells the agent what data it returns (enrollments, users, modules, completion status). It's adequate but not rich — it doesn't mention typical use cases like identifying incomplete training or reconciling against campaigns, which could help agent decision-making.

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%, meaning both parameters (page, per_page) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('training enrollments') and explains what the list contains ('which users are enrolled in which training modules and their completion status'). It's clear and functional. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like knowbe4_training_campaigns_list or knowbe4_training_enrollments_get, though the focus on enrollments vs campaigns is reasonably inferable.

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 (listing enrollments with completion status), which is clear enough. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like knowbe4_training_enrollments_get (single enrollment) or knowbe4_reporting_training_summary (aggregate view). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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