get_ldap_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the bind password is never returned, which is a critical behavioral trait. It also lists the config fields returned. Although it does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 four sentences, each adding value: first sentence states the action, second lists what is returned, third details the config fields, and fourth highlights the important exception about the bind password. No fluff, well-structured.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect: the config fields and that the bind password is not returned. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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?

There are no parameters in the schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to provide param semantics, and it adds no unnecessary information.

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 explicitly states it returns the LDAP/AD authentication configuration for the current organization, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('LDAP / Active Directory authentication configuration'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'update_ldap_config' which is for modifications.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for viewing the current LDAP config, and the presence of 'update_ldap_config' as a sibling implies when to use this read tool vs the write counterpart. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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