mcp-activedirectory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what can be searched but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior beyond max_results, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool with 6 parameters.

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 clearly communicates the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose - it identifies the action, resource, and key search dimensions without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a search tool.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, result ordering, pagination beyond max_results, or error conditions. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects despite the clear parameter documentation in the schema.

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 all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions three parameters (name, os, ou) but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or search logic (AND/OR). 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 tool's purpose as searching computer accounts with specific search criteria (name, OS, OU path). It uses a specific verb ('search') and identifies the resource ('computer accounts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_computers' or 'search_groups', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_computers' or 'get_computer'. It mentions search criteria but doesn't explain when filtering/searching is preferred over listing or direct retrieval, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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