enterprise_info

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

The description discloses the read-only nature upfront and explains behavior for each info_type (e.g., 'get API version metadata', 'list audit logs'). It does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or rate limits, which would be valuable given no annotations exist.

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-organized with a clear opening line, a list of options, and a list of args. No redundant information; each line adds value.

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?

The description covers the full scope of the tool: multiple info_type variants and all parameters. It does not specify return formats in detail, but since no output schema exists, the description's per-type descriptions (e.g., 'get the OpenAPI specification') provide adequate expectations.

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?

All five parameters are described in the description (e.g., 'skip: audit pagination offset', 'limit: audit pagination limit'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema which has no descriptions. The descriptions are concise but sufficient.

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 'Query read-only BloodHound Enterprise service information' and enumerates distinct info_type sub-operations, distinguishing it from sibling entity-specific info tools.

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 that this tool is for service-level information (version, spec, audit, config, features) and not for entity-specific data. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 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.