Find Groups

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description's added burden is lower. It does contribute useful behavior beyond annotations: wildcard support in the match string and subtree scoping via base. It says nothing about result capping despite a `limit` default of 100, though the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Two short sentences, search-key semantics front-loaded before the optional scoping hint, with no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, but structurally sound.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the core matching behavior is covered. Still, with four parameters and no schema descriptions, an agent is left guessing about `domain` (multi-domain targeting?) and `limit` truncation behavior, and lacks any signal for choosing this over sibling group-listing tools.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the required search string in useful detail (matched against cn/name/sAMAccountName/displayName, wildcards allowed) and clarifies that `base` takes a DN such as an OU and narrows scope to a subtree. However, `limit` and `domain` are left entirely unexplained, so half the parameters remain undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (AD groups) plus the exact attributes matched: cn/name/sAMAccountName/displayName with wildcard support. That is clear, but it does not differentiate from near siblings such as find_security_groups, find_distribution_groups, or search_ldap, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 only guidance is a parameter refinement ('Pass `base` ... to restrict the search to a subtree'), which is really parameter semantics rather than usage routing. There is no statement of when to prefer this tool over find_security_groups, find_distribution_groups, or search_ldap, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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