ad_test_domain_controller

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The '[READ]' tag hints at a non-mutating operation, but the description never says what 'availability' actually means (ping, LDAP bind, port probe), what credentials or network reachability are required, whether it times out, or what a negative result looks like.

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 line, front-loaded with a category and read-only tag before the action. Nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity comes at the cost of the guidance noted in other dimensions.

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 described. However, for a connectivity-test tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves out the essentials: what is being tested, against which target by default, and how it differs from the other ad_test_* tools.

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?

Both parameters (target_host, correlation_id) have 0% schema description coverage and the description mentions neither. Critically, it does not explain what happens when target_host is omitted (the default null) — whether it probes all DCs in the domain or uses a discovered DC — which materially changes behavior.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Verificar disponibilidade de um DC' — check a domain controller's availability) and the category tag places it in Domain/Domain Controllers. An agent can distinguish it from list/info siblings like ad_list_domain_controllers and ad_get_domain_controller_info, but no sibling is named explicitly to sharpen the boundary against ad_test_ldap_connectivity.

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 statement of when to use this instead of ad_test_ldap_connectivity, ad_test_dns_resolution, or ad_list_domain_controllers, all of which overlap conceptually with 'test a DC'. The only implied context comes from the bracketed category tag, not from any explicit usage guidance.

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