mcp-activedirectory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the scope (direct and via memberOf) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a clarifying parenthetical about scope. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple lookup tool. It covers the purpose and scope adequately but lacks details on behavior, output, or error handling. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets basic needs but could be more informative.

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 fully. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'identifier' interacts with 'source' or provide examples). 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 ('List') and resource ('all groups a user is a member of'), specifying both direct membership and via memberOf attribute. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_group' (single group) and 'list_groups' (all groups), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_group_members' (members of a group).

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 group membership of a specific user, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_user' (user details) or 'search_users' (finding users). It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools.

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