list_ad_containers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the rdn from results is used as ad_container_rdn, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe the output structure, whether it returns all OUs or only those with certain permissions, or any domain-specific failure modes. The description adds some value but not deep behavioral detail.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the verb, resource, and purpose. The second sentence adds the downstream usage context, and the third provides a helpful analogy. No wasted words.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains why the tool exists, how the result is consumed, and where the parameter comes from. The only minor gap is not describing the output shape, but the output schema exists and the description's downstream usage context compensates.

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 100% and the single parameter domain_id is already described as 'AD domain ID — obtain from list_ad_domains'. The description adds the context that the domain is used for pool provisioning, but doesn't add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists AD containers (OUs) for a domain, with a specific purpose: pool provisioning. It explicitly names the downstream consumers (create_desktop_pool and create_rdsh_farm) and the exact field (ad_container_rdn) the result feeds into, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_ad_domains or list_vm_folders.

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 explains when to use this tool: when picking an OU during pool/farm provisioning, and it references the Horizon Console's OU picker as an analogy. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over sibling list tools.

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