ad_password_spray

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 disclosing behavior. It discloses nothing: no mention of account lockout risks, authentication attempts, output behavior, or required privileges. This is a serious gap for an attack tool that can lock out accounts.

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 short, but this is under-specification, not conciseness. Two words cannot adequately describe a tool with four parameters and significant operational risk. It lacks any structure or front-loaded key information.

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 an AD password spray tool, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to mention the risk of account lockouts, whether it supports multiple users, how the password is used, or what the output/result looks like. Without annotations or an output schema, this gap is unacceptable.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description had to compensate for the four undocumented parameters (users, target, password, userlist), but it provides zero meaning. The agent cannot infer what each parameter represents or how they interact (e.g., whether 'users' and 'userlist' are alternatives).

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 "Password spray." is a direct restatement of the tool name and provides no verb, resource, or scope. It fails to explain what the tool actually does, and offers no differentiation from sibling AD attack tools like ad_kerberoast or ad_ldap_enum.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no context about appropriate scenarios. The description is purely the name of the technique, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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