list_organizational_units

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool retrieves hierarchy, management information, and policy links, but it does not state permission requirements, pagination, performance implications, or the exact return format.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses compact, useful examples. The final sentence restates that it shows OU structure and relationships, adding slight redundancy, but overall it is efficient.

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 four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description covers the broad purpose and gives examples. However, it lacks sibling differentiation and does not describe the return shape or important behavioral details, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces parent_ou and recursive through examples, but it does not add meaning for attributes or filter_criteria beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing Organizational Units in Active Directory, and adds that it retrieves OU hierarchy with management information and policy links. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_organizational_unit or get_organizational_unit_contents.

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 examples show how to call the tool with parent_ou and recursive, but they do not explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_organizational_unit or get_organizational_unit_contents. There are no stated exclusions or conditions for choosing this listing tool.

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