ad_get_gpo_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little beyond the self-declared [READ] tag. It never states required permissions, whether the result includes inheritance/Enforced flags, or how empty results are handled. With an output schema present the return shape is partly covered elsewhere, but the disclosure here remains thin.

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 compact sentence with bracketed tags front-loaded, and zero wasted words. The tag-then-purpose ordering makes it scannable. It is efficient rather than padded, though the tags themselves carry little semantic weight.

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 read-only tool with an output schema covering return values, the definition is just barely sufficient: purpose and target scope are clear. But with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the agent still lacks permissions context and any explanation of correlation_id. Adequate, with clear gaps.

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 does add real meaning for the required target_dn by indicating it accepts a site, domain, or OU DN — a genuine hint at accepted input types. However, correlation_id is left completely unexplained and no DN format/syntax is given, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb (consultar) and resource (vínculos de GPO) plus a clear scope (site, domínio or OU). This distinguishes it from the mutating ad_link_gpo / ad_unlink_gpo and from ad_get_gpo, which returns a GPO itself rather than its links. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as ad_get_gpo, ad_list_gpos, or ad_get_gpo_report. The [READ] tag only signals that the operation is non-mutating, not when an agent should pick this tool. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose statement.

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