graph_directory_objects

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, open-world profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it correlates the same identity across domains and preserves source evidence. It also discloses how empty 'domains' behaves, though it does not describe return shape or pagination, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences pack the core purpose, a concrete parameter example, and fallback behavior with no filler. The main function is front-loaded.

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 description is sufficient for a basic read-only call with optional parameters, and the domain-inference behavior is useful. However, because there is no output schema, the lack of any description of result shape or pagination leaves the agent to guess what the tool will return.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for 'domains' by giving a comma-separated example and the empty-value fallback, and it partially explains 'question' by referencing domain inference. 'limit' is left undocumented beyond its schema default, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 identifies a specific action ('coleta objetos de diretório...') and adds the distinctive correlation-across-domains behavior with source preservation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it is clear but not differentiated by name.

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 given about when to choose graph_directory_objects over the many sibling tools such as list_users, graph_list, or identity_360. The only guidance is the domain-inference fallback for the 'domains' parameter, which is parameter behavior rather than tool-selection guidance.

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