mcp-activedirectory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves details including child object counts, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format/details are returned beyond counts.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific organizational unit') and adds specific value ('including child object counts'). There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 simple read tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and key output detail (child object counts), but lacks information about return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints. Without annotations, more context would be helpful for safe invocation.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'name' fully documented in the schema as 'OU name or partial distinguished name'. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific organizational unit', including the specific detail 'child object counts'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_ous' (which lists multiple OUs) by specifying retrieval of a single OU's details. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_ous' which might also retrieve OU details.

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 when details of a specific OU are needed, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_ous' or 'list_ous'. It mentions 'specific organizational unit' which suggests targeting a known OU, but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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