ise_ers_get_activedirectory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read operation and the tool is clearly a single-object fetch, but the description doesn't disclose return format, whether a 404 is returned for missing IDs, or any auth/permission requirements. For a read-only getter this is minimal-but-acceptable, though richer context would help.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the purpose. There is nothing extraneous; it is concise and immediately clear.

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 simple single-object getter with 2 params and no output schema, the description is relatively complete. However, given the large sibling set and the absence of annotations, it could benefit from noting eligible ID sources (e.g., from a list call) or the relationship to search_activedirectory. Adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is 50% with 2 parameters (id, deployment). The id parameter has no description in the schema, and the description doesn't add meaning for it. The deployment parameter is well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies since coverage is moderate.

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 'Get a single Active Directory object by ID' clearly states the verb (get), resource (Active Directory object), and method (by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like ise_ers_list_activedirectory (list) and ise_ers_search_activedirectory (search by criteria). However, it doesn't explicitly call out the differentiation from the generic get tools in the sibling list.

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 the tool is for fetching a single object when you have its ID, which is a natural read. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over search_activedirectory or list_activedirectory, nor provide any exclusion guidance. The name pattern (get_*) is the primary signal for when to use it.

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