kerberoastable

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a fact and adds '(requête vérifiée)', which is a vague assurance. It does not mention that the tool executes a Cypher query (visible only in the schema default), that it is a read-only operation, or what fields are returned. The behavior is largely hidden.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and does not provide necessary structure (e.g., sections, usage examples, or parameter notes). It is not verbose but also not a well-formed tool description.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description is the primary source of context. It only identifies a high-level result without detailing the returned fields (which are actually visible in the default Cypher query), permissions, or side effects. Given the tool's moderate complexity and many siblings, this is insufficient.

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 schema defines two parameters (k and cy) with default values, but there are no descriptions. The schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain these parameters at all. The defaults hint that cy is the Cypher query and k is a key, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 'Enabled users with an SPN (Kerberoastable)' clearly identifies the tool's purpose: listing users with a Service Principal Name who are enabled, making them kerberoastable. It uses a specific noun phrase that differentiates from siblings like 'asrep_roastable' or 'unconstrained_delegation', though it could be more explicit (e.g., 'List enabled users with an SPN' as a verb 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only states the output. No sibling tools are referenced, and the context for selection is absent.

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