ou_info

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it is a query operation, includes pagination via limit and skip with defaults, and lists info_type options. However, it does not describe the return format or any potential side effects, which leaves a gap in transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 an initial summary, a list of info_type options, and a parameter list. It is slightly verbose but every section adds value; the argument explanations are not redundant with the schema.

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 a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and pagination but lacks any mention of return structure or error handling. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for an agent expecting response details.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: ou_id is a required BloodHound object ID, info_type lists all valid options, limit is described as max results useful in large environments, and skip is a pagination offset. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 OU data from BloodHound, with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates distinct info_type options (info, computers, groups, gpos, users) that clarify the scope and distinguish it from sibling tools targeting other 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?

Usage context is implied: use when you need OU-specific data. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives like entity_info or domain_info, nor any 'when not to use' guidance. The description relies on the tool name and info_type options to convey applicability.

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