Get Ou Contents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results are restricted by OU DN and that an empty list is returned if the OU DN does not exist. It does not explain the limit behavior, domain scoping, pagination, or permission requirements.

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 three short sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary action, then adds the optional filter and the empty-result edge case in a logical order.

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 has an output schema and read-only annotations, so the description need not explain return values or safety. It still leaves domain and limit semantics unaddressed, which matters for a four-parameter LDAP listing tool. The core behavior is covered, but the definition is not complete enough to fully guide invocation in multi-domain contexts.

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 parameter meaning. It explains ou_dn as the OU DN and gives examples for object_class, but it leaves limit and domain entirely undocumented. With half the parameters unexplained in both schema and description, the compensation is insufficient.

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 verb and resource: list objects contained under an OU given its DN. It clearly distinguishes itself from get_ou by focusing on contents rather than the OU object itself, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain when to choose this over search_ldap or get_by_dn.

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 usage by explaining that callers can optionally restrict results to a single object_class such as user, group, computer, or organizationalUnit. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like find_ous, get_by_dn, or search_ldap.

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