ad_list_groups

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only asserts read-only via the [READ] tag and says nothing about default page size behavior, whether listing is recursive over OUs, whether credentials/bind context matter, or what happens when group_scope is omitted.

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, front-loaded sentence with no padding; the tags lead before the substance. It loses a point only because the sentence is in Portuguese amid otherwise English/structured metadata, and brevity here is close to under-specification.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but a 5-parameter, zero-annotation tool with 0% schema coverage needs far more: valid enum-like values for group_scope/group_category, how search_base constrains the query, and limit defaults are all absent.

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% across 5 parameters. The description names two of them conceptually (scope and category filters) but gives no accepted values (e.g., Global/DomainLocal/Universal, Security/Distribution), no search_base semantics, and nothing about limit or correlation_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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Listar grupos") plus the filter concepts (scope, category), with bracketed tags marking the domain ([Groups & Members]) and operation type ([READ]). An agent can tell this apart from ad_get_group (single) or ad_list_group_members (membership) by the plural noun alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to choose this over ad_list_group_members, ad_get_user_groups, or ad_search_users, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the fragment "com filtros de escopo e categoria", which describes capability rather than selecting conditions.

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