asrep_roastable

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool runs a read-only query, whether it accesses live data or cached results, or what side effects it might have. The only additional note, 'requête vérifiée' (verified query), adds little behavioral context.

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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and the French note '(requête vérifiée)' adds marginal value. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal description, it is far from complete. The agent cannot determine what parameters to pass, what the return value looks like, or when to invoke this tool. The description only states the result set, leaving too much unspecified for reliable 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?

The input schema defines two parameters (k and cy) but provides no descriptions, and the tool description does not mention them. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no way to infer the meaning or purpose of these parameters. The default Cypher query is visible but not explained.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: to return enabled users that do not require Kerberos pre-auth (AS-REP roastable). It names a specific resource (users) and a condition (AS-REP roastable), which distinguishes it from siblings like kerberoastable. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'find', so it reads more like a label than an action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or related tools like kerberoastable or run_cypher. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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