Get Privileged Groups

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it documents the returned entry shape, states that member_count is always present, and warns that members only appear with with_members=True and that nested expansion requires nested=True. Not disclosed: cost/performance of nested traversal or any rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by output shape and the flags that change it. The '(Domain Admins, ...)' ellipsis is slightly hand-wavy but costs almost nothing.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, yet it helpfully summarizes the entry structure. The read-only nature is covered by annotations. The one remaining hole is the meaning of the `domain` parameter, which an agent would have to guess.

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 carries the burden. It does this well for with_members and nested, explaining exactly what each adds to the output. The `domain` parameter, defaulting to null, is not explained at all — it is unclear whether null means the current/connected domain or an error condition.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Report on well-known privileged groups (Domain Admins, ...) with counts'. An agent can tell this is a curated report over a fixed set of privileged groups rather than a general group search. However, it never names the sibling tools (find_groups, get_group, group_members) it overlaps with, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for enumerating well-known privileged groups with membership counts. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over find_groups/get_group, nor any precondition or scope caveat (e.g. current domain vs. supplied domain).

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