ad_get_replication_status

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. The [READ] tag conveys non-mutation, but nothing is said about whether omitting `server` targets the local DC, what it costs to query all DCs, or whether it requires domain-admin permissions.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the tag prefix consumes much of the text and the remaining sentence is under-specified rather than concise. It is front-loaded with categorization rather than actionable 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the tool still has two undocumented optional parameters and ambiguity against three replication siblings. For a diagnostics tool in a dense tool namespace, that leaves an agent unable to call it confidently with or without arguments.

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% for two optional parameters (`server`, `correlation_id`), and the description adds nothing about either. An agent cannot tell that `server` selects the target DC versus the authoritative source, or what `correlation_id` is for.

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?

"Consultar estado da replicacao" names a specific verb and resource (read replication status), but it is not distinguishable from close siblings like ad_get_replication_failures, ad_get_replication_partners, or ad_sync_replication, which all operate on the same replication domain. The bracketed category prefix helps route the agent to a domain but does not sharpen the purpose.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With three replication-related siblings in the list, the description never says whether this is a summary check versus a failure drill-down or partner listing, leaving the agent to guess.

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