ad_recon

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Run AD reconnaissance commands' is extremely opaque: it doesn't state whether operations are read-only or potentially modifying, what commands are executed, errors are handled, or what 'collate results' means in practice. There is zero depiction of side effects or privileges required.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It successfully front-loads the core action. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but as a drafting matter it is efficient, so it earns a high score for conciseness.

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?

The tool is likely complex (running multiple AD commands and aggregating results), yet the description provides almost no operational context. There is no output schema to clarify returns, no mention of agent_id semantics, and no indication of what the collated results look like. The description is woefully incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, agent_id, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its meaning, format, and purpose completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's silence.

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 states a specific action ('Run AD reconnaissance commands') and an additional purpose ('collate results'), which distinguishes it from general shell execution or specific AD tools like run_sharphound or enum_domain_users. However, it lacks detail on which commands are included or what 'reconnaissance' covers, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like run_sharphound, enum_domain_users, and run_kerberoast are more specific AD reconnaissance tools, but the description does not explain whether ad_recon should be used instead or in conjunction. The reader is left to infer the intended context.

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