gpo_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It honestly discloses the configurable behaviors via info_type and pagination parameters, and notes limit is 'useful in large environments.' However, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication requirements, or return format, leaving some gaps.

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 into info_type options and args, with each line providing necessary detail. It is verbose but every piece contributes value; no fluff or repetition of schema defaults beyond adding context.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a solid job covering parameter semantics and the behavior variations. It could be more complete by describing the structure of returned data or typical use cases, but the info_type list partially compensates.

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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains gpo_id as a BloodHound object ID, gives concrete semantics for each info_type value, and clarifies limit and skip as pagination controls. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema names 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 'Query GPO data from BloodHound' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates distinct info types. It distinguishes from sibling _info tools by focusing on GPO, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 implies usage for retrieving GPO-related information (computers, controllers, OUs, tier-zero principals, users) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools. It provides no exclusion criteria or alternatives, though the info_type list helps clarify sub-scenarios.

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