ad_get_forest_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only conveys the [READ] label. It says nothing about what a forest query touches, whether it spans all domains/sites, authentication requirements, or performance costs of querying forest-wide data.

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?

A single short sentence with bracketed category and access-mode tags, front-loaded and free of padding. It is arguably over-terse for the breadth of a forest query, and the Portuguese phrasing diverges from the English tool names.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but 'forest information' is a broad resource (domains, sites, global catalogs, trust boundaries) and the description does not narrow it. With zero annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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% and the single optional parameter (correlation_id) is unexplained in both schema and description. The description offers no hint that the only argument is an optional tracing identifier, so an agent cannot infer whether correlation_id affects results.

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+resource ('Consultar informacoes da floresta Active Directory') and tags it as a READ operation in the Domain/Domain Controllers area. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like ad_get_domain_info or ad_get_forest_functional_level, which return overlapping-scope information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus ad_get_domain_info, ad_list_domains, ad_get_forest_functional_level, or ad_get_fsmo_roles — the [READ] tag is the only usage signal. Nothing states prerequisites such as required AD credentials or connectivity.

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