get_gpo_ous

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's purpose and security use case but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, if there are rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of OU names or objects). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by usage context and parameter details. Every sentence adds value, but the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated into the flow rather than listed as bullet points, though this is minor.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, error handling, or return format. For a read tool in a security context, more transparency would enhance completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'gpo_id' is explained as 'The ID of the GPO to query', 'limit' as 'Maximum number of OUs to return (default: 100)', and 'skip' as 'Number of OUs to skip for pagination (default: 0)'. This provides clear context beyond the basic schema, though it doesn't specify format details like what constitutes a valid GPO ID.

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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('OUs that are linked to a specific GPO in the domain'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_gpos' (lists GPOs) or 'get_ous' (lists OUs) by focusing on the relationship between a specific GPO and its linked OUs.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to identify potential targets for lateral movement and privilege escalation'), which helps guide usage in security assessment scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'get_ou_gpos' (which retrieves GPOs linked to an OU, the inverse relationship).

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