user_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what each info_type returns (e.g., 'admin_rights - machine/objects this user has admin rights on') and describes pagination via limit/skip parameters. It stops short of stating side effects (none expected for a query) or auth requirements, but the read-only nature is implicitly clear from 'Query'.

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 concise opening, a bulleted list of info_type options, and a clear Args section. It is longer than average, but each line adds unique value for a tool with many retrieval modes. No redundant filler, though the typos ('delegate to via kerberos') are minor flaws.

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 the tool's complexity (12 info types plus pagination) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics and usage context adequately. It does not describe the format of returned results, but the instruction states this isn't necessary without an output schema. The pagination guidance is a useful extra for large environments.

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 descriptions are entirely absent (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: user_id is required, info_type has a default and enumerates all valid values, and limit/skip are explained with defaults and use cases ('useful in large environments'). This is exemplary parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb + resource ('Query user data from BloodHound') and enumerates 12 distinct info_type options, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like computer_info or entity_info. The list of retrievable data types adds precision beyond the generic tool name.

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 clearly frames the tool for querying user data and provides an exhaustive list of info_type options, guiding an agent on what can be retrieved. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the user-specific scope is evident from the name and context.

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