enum_domain_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is an 'attempt' and includes a fallback method, but it does not specify whether this is read-only, what side effects (if any) might occur, what the output format is, or what happens on failure. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word earns its place. It efficiently conveys the tool's function and fallback mechanism without fluff.

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 simple (one parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the core action and method. However, it lacks important context such as required privileges, potential failure modes, or what the result looks like. Given the absence of annotations and schema details, the description could be more complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'agent_id' parameter. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value beyond the schema, and with no parameter documentation, the agent must infer the semantics from the tool name alone.

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 'enumerate' and the resource 'domain users', and it distinguishes the tool by specifying the method (AD cmdlets or net user fallback). This differentiates it from broader siblings like ad_recon or run_sharphound.

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 when to use it (when you need to enumerate domain users) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like ad_recon or run_sharphound, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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