mcp-activedirectory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about identifier formats for different data sources, which isn't obvious from the schema alone. However, it doesn't describe what 'full details' includes, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits/error conditions.

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 perfectly concise - two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides critical usage guidance. No wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the most important information.

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 read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete about what the tool does and parameter usage. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify what 'full details' includes in the response or any behavioral constraints, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the identifier format guidance mentioned in the schema. Since there are only 2 parameters and schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, with an extra point for the reinforcement.

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 resource ('full details of a specific user'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_users' (which returns multiple users) and 'get_user_groups' (which returns group memberships rather than user 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 provides clear context by specifying when to use different identifier formats ('for on-prem AD use sAMAccountName; for Azure AD use UPN or object ID'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'list_users' for multiple users or 'search_users' for filtered searches.

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