domain_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact behavior of each info_type, parameter dependencies, and defaults (limit=100, skip=0). It highlights that search is limited to name/ID and object_type filtering, providing concrete behavioral specifics.

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 well-structured with a clear opening and organized list of info_type options. While long, every line adds necessary detail for a multi-mode tool; no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description explains the tool's modes and parameters comprehensively. It lacks explicit output format or error details, but for a query tool, the return types are largely inferable from the info_type names.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: info_type options, domain_id necessity, query's purpose, object_type filter, and pagination controls. This goes far beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 clearly states the tool queries domain level data from BloodHound, and the extensive list of info_type options (list, info, search, users, groups, etc.) precisely defines its scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on specific entity types.

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 provides clear context for each info_type, noting when domain_id is required (e.g., info) and when query is needed (search). It implies domain-level queries are the tool's focus, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it.

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