ad_list_ou_objects

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 discloses only that the operation is a read; it says nothing about pagination via 'limit', whether results are recursive, what happens with large OUs, or what permissions are needed to enumerate directory objects.

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?

The text is front-loaded and free of padding, but that is because it is drastically undersized for a 4-parameter tool rather than because it is well-edited. One short sentence cannot be called wasteful, yet it is not appropriately sized for the job.

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 takes a filter and a limit and offers no annotation coverage and no parameter guidance. For a listing tool whose behavior depends on recursion and paging semantics, the description leaves critical 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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It gives no hint about the distinguished-name format for ou_distinguished_name, what object_class values are accepted, or how limit behaves — the schema lists these as bare titles only.

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 verb 'Listar' plus the resource 'objetos de uma OU' does state the operation, and the '[Organizational Units] [READ]' tags help categorize it. But it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as ad_list_ous, ad_get_ou, or ad_get_ou_hierarchy, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these returns OU contents versus OU metadata.

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 use this instead of ad_list_ous or ad_get_ou, no mention of whether sub-OUs are included, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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