get_group_dcom_rights

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what DCOM rights are and their security implications, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the group doesn't exist. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.

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 with four sentences: purpose statement, DCOM explanation, security context, and parameter details. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The parameter section is clear but could be slightly more integrated with the main text.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, security context, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details about return format, error conditions, or examples, which would be helpful given the complexity of DCOM rights and the absence of structured output documentation.

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 compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'group_id' identifies the target group, 'limit' controls maximum returns with a default, and 'skip' enables pagination with a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format constraints for group_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 ('DCOM rights of a specific group within the domain'), making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_computer_dcom_rights' by focusing on groups rather than computers, and from other group-related tools by specifying DCOM rights.

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 mentioning DCOM rights for privilege escalation and lateral movement, suggesting it's for security analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_group_admin_rights' or 'get_group_ps_remote_rights', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for use.

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