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 search functionality but lacks behavioral details: no information on permissions required, rate limits, pagination (beyond 'max_results'), return format, or error handling. For a search tool with zero 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Search organizational units') and specifies searchable attributes concisely, making it easy to parse.

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 for a search tool with 4 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, performance), return values, and usage context relative to siblings. The agent would need to guess based on schema alone.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying searchable fields ('name or description') without detailing syntax or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the 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 ('Search') and resource ('organizational units'), specifying searchable attributes ('by name or description'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_ou' (single retrieval) and 'list_ous' (unfiltered listing), though not explicitly named. However, it could be more specific about what 'search' entails (e.g., partial matching).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_ous' (for unfiltered listing) or 'get_ou' (for retrieving a specific OU). The description implies filtering but doesn't specify scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from sibling tool names alone.

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