mcp-activedirectory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what data is returned (OS, last logon, OU). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for a read operation.

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 and includes key details without waste. It's appropriately sized for a listing tool, making every word count.

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 incomplete. It lacks information on return format, error handling, or operational constraints, which are critical for a tool with filtering parameters and sibling alternatives, making it inadequate for full context.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying filtering capabilities, aligning with the baseline of 3 when schema handles parameter details effectively.

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 ('computer accounts in Active Directory'), specifying the scope with details like OS, last logon, and OU information. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_computer' (singular) and 'search_computers' (implied broader search), but doesn't explicitly contrast them, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_computers' or 'get_computer' is provided. The description implies a listing function but lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, offering minimal direction.

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