can_read_laps

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 merely states what the tool returns, without disclosing whether it is read-only, whether it executes a query, any permissions needed, or potential side effects. The parenthetical '(requête vérifiée)' adds minimal transparency about query verification but does not compensate for the lack of behavioral detail.

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 very concise, a single phrase with a parenthetical note. It is front-loaded with the key information (principals and computers). It avoids unnecessary words, but the lack of a verb slightly reduces clarity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return format, whether results are ordered (though the default query has an ORDER BY), or any limitations. It gives no context on how to interpret the results or when this query might be relevant in a security assessment.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters k and cy. It does not. The defaults in the schema show a Cypher query, but the description gives no indication that these parameters customize the query or what each parameter controls. The description adds no value for parameter 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 states the tool returns principals that can read LAPS passwords and the computers involved. It clearly identifies the resource (LAPS passwords) and the result (principals and computers), distinguishing it from similar tools like can_read_gmsa. However, it lacks a concrete verb (e.g., 'List' or 'Find'), relying instead on a noun phrase.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as can_read_gmsa or run_cypher. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. The usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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