ad_list_group_members

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden; the '[READ]' tag does disclose that this is a non-destructive read, which is the single most important behavioral fact. Beyond that it says nothing about required permissions, whether recursion has depth/performance limits, or how large result sets behave, so the coverage is thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. However, the bracketed category/READ tags consume roughly half the text and the remaining sentence is too compressed to carry the missing parameter and behavioral 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 definition is still incomplete: 0% parameter documentation, no annotations, and no statement of identity format or what 'recursive' costs. For a lookup tool requiring an identity string, the description leaves an agent guessing at the most critical input.

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 document all three parameters and does not. 'diretos ou recursivos' gives meaning to `recursive`, but `identity` is left ambiguous (DN, sAMAccountName, or GUID?) and `correlation_id` is never mentioned at all.

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 ('Listar membros de grupo') and adds the direct-vs-recursive scope, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as ad_get_nested_group_membership or ad_get_user_groups, which is the only reason it falls short of a 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 guidance on when to pick this tool over ad_get_nested_group_membership or ad_get_user_groups, nor any prerequisite (permissions, domain context). The only usage signal is the parenthetical 'diretos ou recursivos', which hints at the scope choice but never states the conditions for each.

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