List Trusts

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real context beyond it: the exact LDAP container read, the attributes surfaced (partner, direction, type), and the failure mode (empty list when the container is unreadable). It does not mention permissions needed to read CN=System, which would complete the picture.

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 paragraphs, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the implementation detail (container path, empty-list fallback) following. Every sentence adds information.

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 means return shape need not be described, and the failure behavior is stated. However, for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, leaving `limit` and `domain` semantics unaddressed leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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 full burden, yet neither parameter is explained. `limit` (default 100) is never mentioned, so the agent cannot know it controls truncation of results, and `domain` is only obliquely referenced by "the domain's" with no statement of what happens when it is null.

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 and resource ("List the domain's trust relationships") and goes further by naming the underlying `trustedDomain` objects under `CN=System,<base>` plus the fields returned. It is naturally distinct from siblings since no other tool covers trusts, though it never acknowledges that `search_ldap` could also surface these objects.

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 parenthetical "(audit)" implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no steering away from the generic `search_ldap` sibling. Usage is inferable but left to the agent.

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