domain_admins

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal an important trait: membership includes both direct and nested members across all Domain Admins groups. However, it omits other potentially relevant details such as read-only nature, permission needs, or output format, which limits transparency.

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 that is front-loaded with the key information. However, the appended French phrase '(requête vérifiée)' is unnecessary for an English-speaking AI agent and adds no semantic value, preventing a perfect score.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description provides only a high-level statement of what is returned (members) without detailing the output structure (e.g., fields like name and group). Combined with absent parameter guidance and usage context, the description is incomplete for a tool with only minimal structured metadata.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters 'k' and 'cy'. Although the defaults hint at a key and a Cypher query, the description does not clarify their meaning or usage, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 returns 'Members (direct + nested) of every Domain Admins group', which is a specific resource and scope. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the noun phrase is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other AD objects or queries.

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 tier_zero, domain_controllers, or run_cypher. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or situational context, leaving the AI agent without clarity on specific use cases.

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