ad_test_secure_channel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The '[READ]' tag hints at a non-mutating check and the word 'Testar' confirms diagnostic intent, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether an implicit local-machine default applies when computer_name is null, or what a failure signals. For a diagnostics tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 plus category/access tags, front-loaded and free of padding. It is concise, but concision here comes at the cost of substance rather than through efficient information density.

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. Everything else is missing: no annotations, no parameter semantics, no mention of what constitutes a pass/fail result or how the two optional params interact. An agent can guess at invocation but cannot verify it is calling the tool correctly.

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% and both parameters (computer_name, correlation_id) are opaque. The description adds no meaning — notably it never says that computer_name may be omitted to target the local machine, which is the single most consequential ambiguity here. Well below the 3 baseline for under-documented schemas.

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+resource is identifiable ('Testar canal seguro' = test secure channel), and the category tag [Replication, Health & Diagnostics] plus [READ] situate it. However, it is written in Portuguese while the tool name and all siblings are English, and it never states the domain context (computer-to-domain trust relationship) that would separate it from ad_test_kerberos_connectivity or 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?

No indication of when to reach for this test versus the other connectivity/diagnostic siblings, no prerequisites, and no consequence stated if computer_name is omitted. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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