enterprise_admin

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

The description explicitly states 'read-only,' which is a key behavioral trait, especially with no annotations provided. It also lists parameter requirements for each info_type (e.g., 'needs: permission_id'). However, it does not describe pagination behavior (skip/limit), response formats, or potential errors. This is adequate but not rich, given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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 effectively structured as a bullet-like list of info_type options, front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose. It is concise for the number of options it covers, with each line adding specific value. It avoids unnecessary prose and is easy to scan.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a functional overview and explains most ID parameters. However, it lacks details on pagination (skip/limit) application, return values, and any nuances like default info_type='self'. This is sufficient for basic selection and invocation but leaves some gaps for an agent to fully understand behavior.

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 0%, but the description compensates well by mapping info_type options to the required ID parameters (permission_id, role_id, user_id, saml_provider_id, sso_provider_id). This gives meaning beyond the raw schema. It does not explain skip/limit, but these are common pagination parameters and less critical for the tool's core functionality.

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's purpose: 'Query read-only BloodHound Enterprise administrative metadata.' This is a specific verb (query), resource (administrative metadata), and mentions read-only. It distinguishes from siblings like user_info or domain_info by focusing on admin-level metadata, and the info_type options further clarify the scope.

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 gives clear context on available info_type options, implying when to use this tool (for admin metadata queries). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like enterprise_info or provide exclusions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it meets the minimum but lacks comparative direction.

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