BloodHound MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes and unclear boundaries, causing significant ambiguity. For example, there are multiple 'list' tools for similar user attributes (e.g., list_enabled_users_with_password_never_expires vs list_enabled_users_pwd_never_expires_unchanged_1yr) and numerous 'route' tools with similar dangerous rights targeting different node types, making it difficult for an agent to distinguish between them without deep domain knowledge.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming is mixed with some consistency but notable deviations. Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_all_gpos, find_all_enabled_as_rep_roastable_users), but there are inconsistencies like abbreviations (e.g., list_own_en_usrs_local_adm_sess), varying verb styles (find vs list vs route), and occasional use of underscores inconsistently, reducing predictability.
Tool Count2/5
With 106 tools, the count is excessive and feels heavy for the domain of BloodHound (security analysis and Active Directory/Azure reconnaissance). This large number suggests over-fragmentation and redundancy, making it overwhelming for agents to navigate and likely including many tools that could be consolidated or parameterized.
Completeness4/5
The tool set appears highly complete for the BloodHound domain, covering a wide range of security analysis tasks such as listing, finding, and routing across users, groups, computers, certificates, and Azure resources. There are minor gaps (e.g., some tools marked as [WIP] or requiring specific data like sessions or azurehound), but overall, it provides extensive coverage for attack path discovery and privilege escalation scenarios.
Average 2.3/5 across 106 of 106 tools scored. Lowest: 1.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description offers no information about whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. It fails to provide any behavioral context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief ('[WIP] Users with Most Local Admin Rights'), which is not a virtue of conciseness but rather under-specification. The '[WIP]' tag indicates it is a work in progress, suggesting incompleteness rather than efficient communication. It lacks any structured information or front-loaded details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving 'most' local admin rights, which suggests ranking or analysis), the absence of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description does not compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the tool's functionality and usage unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter ('domain') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description does not mention any parameters, their purposes, or expected formats (e.g., what constitutes a valid domain). This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[WIP] Users with Most Local Admin Rights' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal additional information. It lacks a specific verb describing what the tool does (e.g., 'list', 'find', 'analyze'), provides no clarity on the resource scope or output format, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin' or 'list_principals_with_local_admin_permission'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools that also deal with local admin rights (e.g., 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin'). There is no indication of when this tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'find' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, any permissions required, rate limits, or side effects. The description is too brief to convey any meaningful behavioral information beyond the basic action implied by 'find'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, poorly structured sentence that repeats the tool name without adding value. While concise, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative, failing to use its brevity to clarify purpose or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving paths, permissions, and principals), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving the tool's functionality, behavior, and parameters unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain represents, its format, or how it influences the search for paths with Shadow Credential permission, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find allshortestpaths with Shadow Credential permission to principal(s)' restates the tool name with minor grammatical adjustments, making it essentially tautological. It doesn't clarify what 'allshortestpaths' means in this context or what 'Shadow Credential permission' entails, leaving the purpose vague despite the tool name being descriptive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools related to paths, permissions, and principals (e.g., 'find_allshortestpaths_with_dcsync_to_domain', 'route_*' tools), the description fails to differentiate this tool's specific use case, offering no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, its impact on systems, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The '[WIP]' tag suggests incompleteness but adds no substantive information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification, consisting only of a restated name and a '[WIP]' tag. While brief, it lacks necessary detail, making it inefficient rather than appropriately concise. The structure does not front-load critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity implied by its name (involving enrollment rights and certificate templates), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide essential context about operations, parameters, or results, rendering it inadequate for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. It does not explain what 'domain' represents, its format, or how it influences the listing, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all Enrollment Right(s) for Certificate Template(s)' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it indicates a listing action, it lacks specificity about what 'Enrollment Rights' entail or how they relate to 'Certificate Templates', failing to distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_all_certificate_templates' or 'list_privileges_for_certificate_authority_servers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'find_enabled_certificate_templates' or 'list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. 'List all group(s)' only states the action without any details on permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's a read-only or destructive operation. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief with 'List all group(s)', this brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks necessary details for a tool with a parameter and no annotations, making it ineffective despite its short length. The structure is minimal but not helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools in a security/AD context, one parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's role, parameter usage, or behavioral expectations, making it inadequate for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter 'domain' with 0% description coverage, meaning its purpose is undocumented. The description 'List all group(s)' does not mention this parameter at all, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with a parameter and low schema coverage, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all group(s)' restates the tool name 'list_all_groups' almost verbatim, making it a tautology. It lacks specificity about what type of groups (e.g., Active Directory groups, Azure groups, or general groups) and provides no distinguishing details from sibling tools like 'list_all_aad_groups_synchronized_with_ad' or 'list_custom_privileged_groups', which offer more context in their names alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that list specific types of groups or related entities (e.g., 'list_all_aad_groups_synchronized_with_ad', 'list_custom_privileged_groups'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's resource-intensive, what format the output takes, or any behavioral characteristics. The description is essentially just a restatement of the tool name with confusing bracketed text.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise (one short phrase), this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't contain enough meaningful information to be helpful. The bracketed text '[Required: sessions]' adds confusion rather than clarity. A truly concise description would efficiently convey essential information, but this omits too much.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 1 undocumented parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and numerous sibling alternatives, the description is completely inadequate. It provides minimal information about what the tool does and no information about how to use it, what it returns, or when to choose it over alternatives. The agent would struggle to correctly select or invoke this tool based on this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('domain') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - it doesn't mention 'domain' at all, nor does it explain what the bracketed '[Required: sessions]' means in relation to the actual parameter. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all user session(s) [Required: sessions]' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'list_all_user_sessions' with minimal additional information. While it does specify the resource ('user session(s)'), it doesn't provide any meaningful context about what constitutes a 'user session' or the scope of the listing. The bracketed text '[Required: sessions]' is confusing and doesn't clarify the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the numerous sibling tools (over 100) including several session-related tools like 'computers_with_most_sessions', 'users_with_most_sessions', and 'route_all_sessions_to_computers', the agent has no indication of when this specific 'list_all_user_sessions' tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'List' without details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only or destructive. This lack of information fails to inform the agent about critical operational aspects, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase 'List domain computer(s)', which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide necessary context or structure, making it inefficient as it requires the agent to infer missing details rather than delivering value upfront.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with one parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, parameter details, usage context, or output expectations, failing to compensate for the gaps in structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter 'domain' undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not add any meaning, such as explaining what 'domain' refers to (e.g., Active Directory domain name), its format, or examples, leaving the parameter semantics entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List domain computer(s)' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'domain computer(s)', but lacks detail on scope, format, or differentiation from siblings like 'list_all_owned_computers' or 'computers_with_most_sessions', leaving the purpose vague and under-specified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_all_owned_computers', 'list_computers_without_laps'), the absence of usage guidelines is a significant gap, likely leading to confusion in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it performs active scanning or queries existing data, what format the output takes, or any rate limits or constraints. The single sentence offers zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'List'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this represents under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description is so brief that it fails to provide meaningful information. There's no structure or front-loading of important details - it's a minimal phrase that doesn't help the agent understand when or how to use this tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the security-focused sibling tools, the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, this description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what 'high value targets' means in this domain, how results are returned, what security implications the tool has, or how it differs from numerous similar tools. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of structured documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the single required 'domain' parameter. With 0% schema description coverage (the schema only provides parameter name and type), the description fails completely to explain what the domain parameter represents, what format it expects, or how it affects the tool's behavior. For a tool with one undocumented parameter, this represents a significant gap in parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List high value target(s)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It provides a basic verb ('List') and object ('high value target(s)'), but lacks specificity about what constitutes 'high value targets' in this security context or how this differs from the many other listing tools in the sibling set. The purpose is vague compared to more specific sibling tools like 'list_all_enabled_users_with_password_never_expires' or 'list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 85+ sibling tools that perform various security enumeration and listing functions, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be selected over other tools like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users' or 'route_from_owned_enabled_principals_to_high_value_targets'. The agent receives no usage context, prerequisites, or differentiation criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what 'route' entails (e.g., output format, potential side effects), or any constraints like permissions, rate limits, or data scope. The term 'route' is ambiguous—it could imply analysis, listing, or modification—leaving critical behavior unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase that is under-specified rather than concise. While brief, it fails to convey essential information, making it inefficient. A truly concise description would front-load key details (e.g., 'List or analyze memberships for owned, enabled, non-privileged groups in a domain'), but here brevity comes at the cost of clarity, earning a low score for structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving routing, ownership, enabled status, and non-privileged groups), the description is severely incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify behavior, the output schema is absent, and the single parameter is undocumented. The description does not compensate for these gaps, failing to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively in a security or directory analysis setting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't mention 'domain' at all or explain its role (e.g., target Active Directory domain). With zero compensation for the schema gap, this leaves the parameter's purpose and usage completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route all owned & enabled non-privileged group(s) membership' restates the tool name with minor grammatical adjustments, making it essentially tautological. It lacks a specific verb-action combination and doesn't clarify what 'route' means operationally (e.g., list, analyze, map, or modify). While it hints at targeting group memberships, the purpose remains vague compared to the explicit naming of sibling tools like 'list_all_groups' or 'route_all_sessions_to_computers'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., security assessments, Active Directory analysis), or differentiate it from similar tools like 'route_all_owned_enabled_group_memberships' or 'route_all_owned_enabled_privileged_group_memberships' listed among siblings. Without any usage cues, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't explain what 'route' entails (e.g., is it a read-only query, a destructive operation, or something else?), what permissions are required, potential side effects, or output format. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase that under-specifies rather than being concise. While brief, it lacks meaningful structure or front-loading of key information, failing to communicate purpose or usage effectively. It's not appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity implied by the name (involving routing, ownership, enabled status, and privileged groups), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a vague description, it provides insufficient context for an agent to understand or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('domain') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't mention 'domain' or any other inputs, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of what the parameter represents or how to use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route all owned & enabled privileged group(s) membership' restates the tool name with minor phrasing changes ('all owned & enabled privileged group(s) membership' vs 'all_owned_enabled_privileged_group_memberships'), making it tautological. It doesn't clarify what 'route' means in this context or what specific action is performed beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'route_all_owned_enabled_group_memberships' or 'route_all_owned_enabled_non_privileged_group_memberships', leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. For a tool likely involving security analysis or pathfinding, this lack of transparency is inadequate, leaving the agent unaware of critical operational aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase that is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids redundancy, it lacks necessary detail and structure, such as clarifying the tool's scope or output. This brevity does not earn its place as it omits essential information for effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name and sibling tools, along with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. This leaves the parameter's meaning, format, or usage completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap and providing no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route from owned & enabled principals to high value target(s)' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Route') and resources ('owned & enabled principals', 'high value target(s)'), but lacks specificity on what 'route' entails (e.g., pathfinding, analysis) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_all_owned_enabled_group_memberships' or 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_any', leaving the purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to reference sibling tools for comparison, such as other 'route' tools in the list. This absence makes it misleading for an agent to select the correct tool without additional context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., sorted, limited), or any rate limits. The '[WIP]' tag suggests incompleteness but adds no useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it's brief, it wastes space on '[WIP]' and redundant elements like '[Required: sessions]' without adding meaningful content. It lacks front-loaded clarity and doesn't structure information effectively for tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name and sibling context, the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% coverage, it fails to provide essential details about behavior, results, or usage. It doesn't help an agent understand what the tool does or how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'domain' represents, its format, or how it relates to the tool's function. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[WIP] Users with Most Sessions [Required: sessions]' is vague and tautological. It restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, only adding '[WIP]' and '[Required: sessions]' which don't clarify the specific action or resource. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_all_user_sessions' or 'users_with_most_cross_domain_sessions', leaving the purpose unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[Required: sessions]' but doesn't explain what this means contextually or how it differs from other session-related tools in the extensive sibling list. There are no explicit instructions, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what the tool does beyond the vague action—no information on output format, whether it's read-only or mutating, performance characteristics, error conditions, or security implications. Terms like 'DCSync' and 'allshortestpaths' are not explained, leaving critical behavior opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence, which is efficient in length. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it omits necessary details for understanding. While front-loaded, it doesn't earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by terms like 'DCSync' and 'allshortestpaths', no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanation of what the tool finds, how results are structured, or the security context, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter semantics. It mentions 'domain object' but doesn't clarify what the 'domain' parameter expects (e.g., domain name format, examples, or constraints). This leaves the parameter entirely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find allshortestpaths with DCSync to domain object' restates the tool name with minimal clarification. It identifies the action ('Find allshortestpaths') and target ('domain object'), but uses vague terms like 'allshortestpaths' and 'DCSync' without explaining what these mean or what resource is being analyzed. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools that also find paths or relationships in Active Directory environments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., Active Directory security assessment), or compare to sibling tools like 'find_allshortestpaths_with_shadow_credential_permission' or other path-finding tools. Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('List'), with no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this represents a complete failure to disclose behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just three words. While this avoids unnecessary verbosity, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence structure is clear but lacks the front-loaded information that would help an agent quickly understand the tool's purpose and usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and operates in a complex security/domain context with many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide the necessary context about what 'custom privileged groups' are, how they differ from other groups, what the domain parameter means, or what the output will contain. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single required parameter 'domain' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides zero information about this parameter - what format it expects, what values are valid, or what 'domain' refers to in this context. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation from the description, this represents a critical gap in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List custom privileged group(s)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides a verb ('List') and resource ('custom privileged group(s)'), but lacks specificity about what 'custom privileged' means or how this differs from other group listing tools. Compared to siblings like 'list_all_groups' or 'list_privileged_users_without_protected_users', it doesn't clearly distinguish its unique scope or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools that list groups, users, or privileged entities, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives might be better suited for different scenarios. The agent receives zero usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action 'List' without details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's read-only or destructive. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is overly terse, lacking necessary details, which reduces its effectiveness despite efficient wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., security-focused listings), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address what 'non-managed service accounts' are, the listing scope, or any behavioral context needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'domain' parameter. It does not explain what 'domain' refers to, its format, or how it affects the listing, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List non-managed service account(s)' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'non-managed service account(s)', but lacks detail on scope or output format, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_users' or 'list_all_users_with_description_field'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage instructions. Sibling tools include many list operations, but this tool offers no differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The '[WIP]' tag suggests incomplete information, further reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but not effectively structured. The [WIP] tag and bracketed requirement disrupt flow without adding substantive value. While short, it's under-specified rather than concise, with the tag indicating work-in-progress status that shouldn't be in a production description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'privileges' are returned, how results are formatted, what the tool actually does beyond the basic verb, or provide any meaningful context for a security-focused tool in a complex sibling environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single 'domain' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - no explanation of what domain means, format requirements, or examples. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'List privileges for Certificate Authority server(s)' which provides a basic verb+resource, but it's vague about what 'privileges' specifically means and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_certificate_authority_servers'. The [WIP] tag and bracketed requirement add noise rather than clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes '[Required: Certipy]' which hints at a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or what context it's appropriate for. No explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons are present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('Route') without explaining what 'routing' means operationally, such as whether it performs read-only analysis, modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like network queries. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, brief sentence that is front-loaded but under-specified. While concise, it lacks necessary detail to be truly effective, as it omits key information that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'routing' operations, no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify the tool's purpose, behavior, parameters, or output, making it inadequate for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about this parameter. It does not explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., a network domain, Active Directory domain), its format, or its role in the routing process, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route all owned & enabled group membership(s)' restates the tool name with minor wording changes, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Route') and resource ('group membership(s)'), but lacks specificity about what 'routing' entails (e.g., listing, analyzing, or mapping paths) and how it differs from similar tools like 'route_all_owned_enabled_non_privileged_group_memberships' or 'route_all_owned_enabled_privileged_group_memberships'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and fails to differentiate it from sibling tools that also involve routing or group memberships, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Route all sessions to computers' suggests a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify what 'route' entails, whether it's destructive, what permissions are needed, or what the expected outcome is. The description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits for what appears to be an administrative action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one phrase with parenthetical), which could be considered concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The structure isn't front-loaded with critical information since it leads with the tautological restatement of the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, what behavior to expect, or what results will be returned. Given the complexity implied by the name and sibling tools, this leaves the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no meaningful parameter information. The parenthetical '(Required: sessions)' is confusing since the actual required parameter is 'domain', not 'sessions'. This creates parameter misinformation rather than adding value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route all sessions to computers (Required: sessions)' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal expansion. It mentions 'sessions' as required but doesn't explain what 'route' means operationally or what resource is being acted upon. Compared to siblings like 'route_all_sessions_to_computers_without_laps', it lacks specific differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '(Required: sessions)' appears to be a parameter note rather than usage context. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or how it differs from similar routing tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and subjects/targets, with '[HIGH RAM]' hinting at resource intensity but lacking detail on performance impact, side effects (e.g., read-only vs. destructive), authentication needs, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one phrase plus a note), which is efficient, but it is not front-loaded with critical information—the '[HIGH RAM]' warning is appended without elaboration. While concise, it under-specifies key details, making it less helpful than a slightly longer but more informative description would be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'dangerous rights' and routing operations, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, security context, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It does not explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., Active Directory domain name), its format, or how it influences the routing operation, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights to GPO(s) [HIGH RAM]' restates the tool name with minor elaboration ('[HIGH RAM]'), making it largely tautological. It specifies the action ('route'), subjects ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights'), and targets ('GPO(s)'), but lacks specificity about what 'route' entails (e.g., find paths, map relationships) and how it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_gpos' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_permissions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., domain context), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_permissions' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is purely declarative with no operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase—and front-loads the core purpose. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification; while structurally efficient, it lacks necessary detail that would help the agent use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving users, group memberships, and cross-domain concepts), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'foreign group membership' entails, what the output looks like, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent unable to use this tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'domain' is undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter—what it represents, format expectations, or why it's required. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of the input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all enabled user(s) with foreign group membership' restates the tool name almost verbatim, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('enabled user(s)') and a condition ('with foreign group membership'), but lacks a clear verb beyond 'List' and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_enabled_users_group_memberships' or 'list_all_cross_domain_user_sessions_and_memberships'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on user memberships, sessions, and privileges, there's no indication of what 'foreign group membership' means or when this specific query is appropriate compared to other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('List') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, which is appropriately brief for a simple-sounding list operation. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and operates in a complex security/domain context with many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides minimal information about what the tool does and nothing about how to use it effectively, what it returns, or how it differs from related tools in the server.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the 'domain' parameter. The description adds no information about parameters whatsoever - it doesn't mention the required 'domain' parameter, explain what it represents, or provide any context about its format or usage. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all owned computer(s)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list_all_owned_computers'. While it includes a verb ('List') and resource ('owned computer(s)'), it lacks specificity about what 'owned' means in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_domain_computers' or 'computers_with_most_sessions'. The description doesn't clarify scope or criteria beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools related to computers, users, groups, and sessions, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or appropriate for specific scenarios. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does at a surface level without any information about permissions required, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output takes, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, which is appropriate for a simple tool. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 1 parameter (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the parameter, doesn't differentiate from alternatives, doesn't describe behavior, and doesn't provide any context about what 'description field' means or what the output looks like. This leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. The description doesn't explain what domain means, what format it expects, or provide any context about this required parameter. With no schema descriptions and no parameter information in the description, this leaves the agent guessing about how to use the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all user(s) with description field' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'user(s)', but lacks specificity about what 'description field' means or how this differs from other user-listing tools like 'list_enabled_users' or 'list_all_enabled_users_with_email'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but fails to distinguish from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on users (e.g., 'list_enabled_users', 'list_all_enabled_users_with_email', 'list_all_owned_enabled_users'), there is no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred. The description is completely silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description fails to disclose behavioral traits: it doesn't state whether this is a read-only or mutation operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., sorted, limited), or any side effects. The '[WIP]' tag suggests incompleteness but doesn't add useful behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one line) but not effectively structured. It's front-loaded with '[WIP]' which adds noise, and the content is under-specified rather than concise. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to convey essential information efficiently, making it more incomplete than truly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (ranking computers by session count), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and rich sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameters, output, or how it fits into the broader context, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'domain' is, its format, or how it relates to the tool's purpose. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '[WIP] Computers with Most Sessions [Required: sessions]' is vague and tautological. 'Computers with Most Sessions' restates the tool name without specifying what action the tool performs (e.g., list, find, analyze). The '[Required: sessions]' adds some context but doesn't clarify the verb or resource scope. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_all_user_sessions' or 'users_with_most_sessions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '[Required: sessions]' implies a prerequisite but doesn't explain what 'sessions' refers to or how it differs from similar tools (e.g., 'list_all_user_sessions' lists sessions, while this tool focuses on computers with the most sessions). No context on exclusions or alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without any details on permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's a read-only or destructive operation. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single phrase—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to underspecification in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context for the agent to understand the tool's behavior, inputs, or outputs, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. It does not explain what 'domain' represents, its format, or its role in filtering results, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all owned user(s)' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'owned user(s)', but lacks detail on what 'owned' means in this context or how it differs from similar tools like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users'. This is borderline tautological with the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on users (e.g., 'list_all_owned_enabled_users', 'list_all_enabled_users'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or distinctions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's destructive, what format the output takes, or any rate limiting considerations. The single sentence provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'List'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise - a single three-word phrase that communicates the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as a standalone measure of brevity and structure, it's perfectly executed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a tool with 1 undocumented required parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and operating in a complex Active Directory/security context with many similar sibling tools, this description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does beyond the name, no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no differentiation from alternatives. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the 'domain' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - not what it represents, what format it expects, whether it's a domain name or identifier, or what happens if an invalid domain is provided. For a tool with a required parameter and zero schema documentation, this is critically inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List domain controller(s)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'domain controller(s)', but lacks any detail about scope, format, or what constitutes a domain controller in this context. While it distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on domain controllers, it doesn't differentiate from tools like 'list_domain_computers' or 'list_certificate_authority_servers' that might also list specific server types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any comparison with sibling tools like 'list_domains' or 'list_domain_trusts'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific listing tool is appropriate versus other domain-related listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. The description only states the action ('List enabled user(s)') without any information on permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's a read-only operation. This lack of detail leaves the agent unaware of critical behavioral aspects needed for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase, 'List enabled user(s)', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While this conciseness leads to under-specification in other dimensions, it efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (many user-listing variants), lack of annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand when to use it, what it returns, or how to parameterize it correctly, failing to compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description does not mention any parameters, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with an undocumented required parameter, this is a significant gap that hinders proper usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List enabled user(s)' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it a tautology. It specifies the verb 'list' and resource 'enabled user(s)', but fails to distinguish this tool from numerous sibling tools that also list users with various filters (e.g., list_all_enabled_users_logged_in_last_90_days, list_all_enabled_users_with_password_never_expires). The purpose is vague about what 'enabled' means in this context and lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on listing users with specific attributes or filters, there is no indication of what makes this tool unique (e.g., whether it lists all enabled users without additional filters, or if it has a specific scope). This absence of context makes it difficult for an agent to choose appropriately among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at high resource usage ('[HIGH RAM]') but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what 'dangerous rights' entail, potential side effects, or output format. The description is too vague to inform safe or effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence plus a note), which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The '[HIGH RAM]' note adds some value, but the core purpose remains unclear, making the brevity more of a deficiency than a strength.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a complex tool name implying security analysis, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, what parameters mean, or what to expect, leaving the agent unable to operate this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'domain' parameter at all. With 1 required parameter undocumented in both schema and description, the agent lacks any semantic understanding of what input is needed or how it affects the tool's behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Route non-privileged computer(s) with dangerous rights to computer(s)' which is a tautology of the tool name, adding only '[HIGH RAM]' as extra information. It does not specify what 'route' means (e.g., find paths, list relationships), nor does it distinguish from siblings like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_gpos' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or compare to sibling tools, leaving the agent with no basis for selection among similar routing tools in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or output format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise, the description is under-specified—it's a single phrase that lacks necessary detail for effective tool use. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, and here the brevity results in insufficient information, not efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving LAPS, a security feature), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain LAPS, the tool's purpose in security contexts, or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or any constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List computer(s) WITHOUT LAPS' states the action (list) and resource (computers) with a specific filter condition (without LAPS), which is clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_domain_computers' or 'list_all_owned_computers' by explaining what LAPS is or why this distinction matters, making it somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a domain parameter, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_domain_computers' or 'route_all_sessions_to_computers_without_laps', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides zero behavioral information. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it returns all domains or a filtered subset, what format the output takes, or any rate limits or constraints. For a tool in what appears to be a security/penetration testing context, this lack of transparency is particularly problematic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just two words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load important information or provide any structure. It's so minimal that it fails to communicate basic purpose and context. In this case, brevity comes at the cost of clarity and usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (Active Directory/network security enumeration), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'domains' means in this context, what the output format will be, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that likely returns structured domain information in a security context, this minimal description leaves the agent guessing about fundamental aspects of the tool's operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though with no parameters, this is trivial). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters that don't exist. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate, though the description could theoretically mention that no parameters are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List domain(s)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list_domains'. It doesn't specify what kind of domains (Active Directory domains, network domains, etc.) or provide any meaningful context about the resource being listed. While it does contain a verb ('List') and resource ('domain(s)'), it lacks specificity and doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings that also list various Active Directory/network entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 100+ sibling tools that perform various listing/enumeration functions in what appears to be an Active Directory/network security context, the agent has no indication whether this is for listing all domains in a forest, trusted domains, or something else. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or when this tool would be preferred over other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action of listing. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's resource-intensive, what format the output takes, or any other behavioral characteristics. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('List domain trust(s)') but this borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, it lacks any additional context that would help an agent understand when and how to use this tool. The single sentence earns its place by stating the basic action, but leaves too much unsaid.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (which suggest this is part of an Active Directory/security assessment toolset), the description is completely inadequate. With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, an agent has almost no information about what this tool does, when to use it, what it returns, or how it behaves. The description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it doesn't attempt to. Since there are no parameters to document, this meets expectations. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, as the description doesn't create confusion about non-existent parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List domain trust(s)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list_domain_trusts'. It provides the verb 'list' and resource 'domain trust(s)', but lacks specificity about what domain trusts are, what information is listed, or how this differs from sibling tools. While it's clear this is a listing operation, it doesn't distinguish itself from other list_* tools in the extensive sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools that perform various listing operations (list_domains, list_domain_controllers, list_all_gpos, etc.), there's no indication of when domain trust listing is appropriate versus other domain-related queries. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers almost no behavioral disclosure. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what data format it returns, whether it's resource-intensive, or any side effects. The WIP tag suggests incomplete information, further reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but poorly structured with a WIP tag and bracketed note that don't follow standard description conventions. It's under-specified rather than concise, and the information isn't front-loaded effectively for agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are formatted, what 'most' means quantitatively, or provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively alongside the many similar sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 1 parameter, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It doesn't mention the 'domain' parameter at all, nor explain what the parameter represents or how it affects the results. The bracketed note mentions 'sessions' but doesn't connect it to the actual parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description partially states what the tool does ('Users with most cross-domain sessions') but is vague and includes a WIP tag and bracketed note that adds confusion rather than clarity. It doesn't specify the action verb clearly (is it listing? ranking? finding?) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'users_with_most_sessions' or 'list_all_cross_domain_user_sessions_and_memberships'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The bracketed note '[Required: sessions]' provides minimal usage context about prerequisites, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools for session analysis or user listing. No explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios for this tool's application.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'Required: azurehound', hinting at a dependency, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, rate-limited, or what the output format might be. The '[WIP]' tag suggests incomplete information, further reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes unnecessary elements like '[WIP]' and the parenthetical note, which add clutter without enhancing clarity. It's somewhat efficient but could be more polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving Azure apps, owners, service principals, and dangerous rights), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, making it incomplete for effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the parameter means, its format, or how it influences the search. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Find all Owners of Azure Applications with Owners to Service Principals with Dangerous Rights', which specifies the verb 'Find' and resource 'Owners of Azure Applications', but it's vague about what 'Dangerous Rights' entails and includes '[WIP]' indicating it's incomplete. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on Azure app owners, but the purpose remains somewhat unclear due to the WIP tag and lack of specificity on 'dangerous rights'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Required: azurehound', which provides a prerequisite, but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_principals_with_azure_tenancy_access' or other sibling tools. There's no explicit when/when-not context or named alternatives, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions a prerequisite ('azurehound') which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the output format might be. The [WIP] tag further reduces transparency by indicating incompleteness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two main parts: the purpose and a prerequisite. However, the [WIP] tag adds noise and reduces clarity, and the phrasing 'Owned: [WIP]' is awkwardly structured. It's somewhat efficient but could be more polished and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (involving Azure access and group membership), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain the 'domain' parameter at all. This leaves the parameter undocumented, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage and providing no semantic value beyond what the schema minimally indicates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Find all owned user where group membership grants privileged access to Azure Tenancy' which provides a verb ('Find') and resource ('owned user'), but it's vague about what 'owned' means and the purpose is partially obscured by the [WIP] tag. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'find_owned_users_with_azure_tenancy_access' or 'list_all_owned_enabled_users'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite '(Required: azurehound)' which provides some usage context, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_owned_users_with_azure_tenancy_access' or other sibling tools that involve Azure access or owned users. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('List all') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or whether it's a read-only or mutating operation. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no unnecessary verbiage or structural issues, making it front-loaded and efficient in terms of word count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'cross-domain' operations, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for the single required parameter, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns, how to use it correctly, or its behavioral characteristics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or how it affects the listing of cross-domain sessions and memberships, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('List all') and the target ('cross-domain user session(s) and user group membership(s)'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'cross-domain' means in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'list_all_user_sessions' or 'list_all_domain_users_group_memberships' beyond the 'cross-domain' qualifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools that list sessions or memberships, there's no indication of how this tool differs in usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('List all owned & enabled user(s)') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination, output format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, which is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness - while there's no wasted language, the description is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. For a tool that presumably queries user data (which could involve permissions, filtering logic, and result formatting), the description should provide more context about what 'owned' means, what 'enabled' means, and how results are returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'domain' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter whatsoever - it doesn't mention the parameter exists, what it represents, or what format it expects. With 0% schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, this fails to compensate for the documentation gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all owned & enabled user(s)' states the basic action (list) and target (owned & enabled users), which provides a vague purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'owned' means in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_all_owned_users' or 'list_all_enabled_users', making it unclear how this differs from those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that list users with various filters (e.g., 'list_all_owned_users', 'list_all_enabled_users', 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_email'), there's no indication of when this specific combination of 'owned' and 'enabled' is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails entirely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format might be, or any side effects. For a security tool that likely queries sensitive directory data, this lack of transparency is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with a single clear sentence that states the core purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - every word serves the function of declaring what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a security tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'AS-REP roastable' means, what the tool actually returns, what permissions are needed, or how to interpret results. This leaves too many critical questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'domain', and the tool description provides absolutely no information about what this parameter means, what format it expects, or how it's used. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, leaving the agent completely in the dark about required input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find all enabled AS-REP roastable user(s)' clearly states the verb ('Find') and resource ('enabled AS-REP roastable user(s)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_all_enabled_kerberoastable_users' or 'list_enabled_users', leaving room for confusion about the specific vulnerability type targeted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., security auditing, penetration testing), or compare to similar tools like 'find_all_enabled_kerberoastable_users' for different attack vectors. This leaves the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'Find all enabled kerberoastable user(s)', implying a read-only search operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, output format, or whether it's destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, it's overly terse, bordering on under-specification, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving security-specific terms like 'kerberoastable'), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's full scope, behavior, or how to interpret results, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what the 'domain' parameter expects (e.g., a domain name format) or its role in the search. With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Find all enabled kerberoastable user(s)' states a verb ('Find') and resource ('enabled kerberoastable user(s)'), giving a vague purpose. It doesn't specify what 'kerberoastable' means in this context or how it differs from similar tools like 'find_all_enabled_as_rep_roastable_users', leaving the agent to infer technical details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools focused on user enumeration and security vulnerabilities (e.g., 'find_all_enabled_as_rep_roastable_users', 'list_enabled_users'), the description lacks context about specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering minimal help for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns paginated results, what format the output takes, or any side effects. The description is purely functional with no operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for such a simple statement, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (security/network tool with no annotations, 1 undocumented parameter, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context: behavioral traits, parameter details, output format, and usage guidance. This leaves the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain), its format, or examples. The agent must guess based on the parameter name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Find') and resource ('all owned groups that grant access to network shares'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the specificity of 'owned groups granting network share access' naturally differentiates it from other tools focused on users, sessions, or different permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., security auditing, network analysis), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_network_shares_ignoring_sysvol' or 'list_all_groups'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite ('azurehound') which is useful, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what 'owned' means operationally, what format results return, or any rate limits/authentication needs. For a tool that appears to query security data, this is inadequate behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two short phrases) but contains unnecessary elements like '[WIP]' which doesn't help the agent. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the structure could be cleaner without the work-in-progress tag.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and the complexity of security/privileged access queries, the description is incomplete. It mentions a prerequisite but doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or result format. The [WIP] tag explicitly signals incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single 'domain' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - what domain means, format examples, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Find all owned user with privileged access to Azure Tenancy' which provides a verb ('Find') and resource ('owned user with privileged access to Azure Tenancy'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'owned' means and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_principals_with_azure_tenancy_access' or 'find_owned_users_with_group_granted_azure_access'. The [WIP] tag indicates it's incomplete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Required: azurehound' which provides a prerequisite, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_principals_with_azure_tenancy_access' or 'find_owned_users_with_group_granted_azure_access'. There's no explicit when/when-not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Required: Certipy', which adds some context about dependencies, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, potential rate limits, or authentication needs. The description is too sparse to adequately inform the agent about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with only one sentence and a note, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness, as it lacks necessary details that would help the agent use the tool effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter, output, or behavioral context adequately. While it hints at a dependency, it doesn't provide enough information for the agent to understand the tool's full scope and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides no information about the single parameter 'domain', such as its meaning, format, or examples. The description does not add any semantic value beyond the bare schema, leaving the parameter undocumented and unclear to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'List' and resource 'Certificate Template(s)', which gives a basic purpose. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., all templates in what context?) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_enabled_certificate_templates' or 'list_all_enrollment_rights_for_certificate_templates', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes '[Required: Certipy]', which hints at a prerequisite tool dependency, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers no information about safety (e.g., read-only vs. destructive), permissions required, rate limits, or output format. It merely restates the tool name without adding any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, and it is front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient despite its simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of listing group memberships (which could involve permissions, pagination, or filtering), no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, and parameter usage, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or examples, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all "Domain Users" group membership(s)' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Domain Users group membership(s)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_authenticated_users_group_memberships' or 'list_all_enabled_azure_users_group_memberships' that also list group memberships for different user types, leaving the scope somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., domain context), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'list_all_authenticated_users_group_memberships' or 'list_all_groups', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, returns sensitive data, has rate limits, or details output format (e.g., list structure, pagination). The description is minimal and adds little beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool. However, it's under-specified rather than concise, as it lacks necessary details for effective use, but structurally it's front-loaded and clear within its limited scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a parameter-heavy context (1 param), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's role in security contexts, the significance of the 'userpassword' attribute, or how to interpret results, making it inadequate for a tool that likely handles sensitive user data in a complex sibling environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('domain') undocumented in both schema and description. The description doesn't mention the parameter at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving the agent unsure about the parameter's purpose or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('List') and target ('all enabled user(s) with "userpassword" attribute'), which is clear but vague about what 'userpassword' attribute means or why it's significant. It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on a specific attribute, but doesn't explain how it differs from similar tools like 'list_enabled_users' or 'list_all_enabled_users_with_no_password_required' beyond the attribute name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., security auditing), or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_enabled_users' or 'list_all_enabled_users_with_password_never_expires', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('List'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not cover critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, output format, or whether it returns all principals or is paginated. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be improved by adding necessary details without sacrificing brevity. The structure is clear, though minimalistic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing principals with a specific permission), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, parameter meaning, or output details, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively. More context is needed to compensate for the missing structured information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'domain' with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention or explain this parameter at all. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate by providing any semantic context, such as what 'domain' refers to or how it affects the listing. This leaves the parameter undocumented and unclear in usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all principal(s) with "RDP" permission' clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'principal(s)', specifying the permission type 'RDP'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp' or 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_rdp_and_sessions', making the purpose somewhat vague in context. It avoids tautology by not restating the name exactly, but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as distinguishing it from sibling tools that list RDP-related principals with additional filters (e.g., non-privileged users or those with sessions). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving usage unclear. It implies a general listing but offers no explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a required dependency ('Certipy'), which is useful context, but fails to describe key traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of template names or detailed objects), any rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects. For a security-focused tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence plus a note) and front-loaded with the core purpose, avoiding unnecessary fluff. However, the note '[Required: Certipy]' is somewhat cryptic and could be integrated more clearly. While concise, it may be too minimal given the tool's complexity and lack of other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's security context, 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the required tool 'Certipy' but lacks details on behavior, output, parameter meaning, and usage context. For a tool that likely interacts with certificate authorities and vulnerabilities, more guidance is needed to ensure safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain represents (e.g., Active Directory domain name), expected format, or examples. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this leaves the parameter entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('ESC2 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from general certificate template tools like 'list_all_certificate_templates' by focusing on a specific vulnerability type (ESC2), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates' beyond the vulnerability number.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with the note '[Required: Certipy]', which hints at a prerequisite tool dependency. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use context, no comparison to alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. 'find_enabled_certificate_templates'), and no exclusions or scenarios for application. This leaves the agent with little direction on appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'Required: Certipy' which adds some context about dependencies, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with just one sentence and a note in brackets, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (security vulnerability scanning), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what ESC4 vulnerability means, what the tool returns, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't mention any parameters. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving the 'domain' parameter undocumented in both places. This is inadequate given the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'List ESC4 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)' which provides a specific verb ('List') and resource ('ESC4 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)'), but it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates' or 'list_all_certificate_templates'. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes '[Required: Certipy]' which hints at a prerequisite tool, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other ESC vulnerability listing tools or general certificate template tools. No context on when-not-to-use or clear alternatives is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'ignoring SYSVOL' which hints at filtering behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it's safe/destructive, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one phrase, which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's arguably too terse, bordering on under-specification rather than efficient communication. It earns a 4 for zero waste but loses points for potential insufficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, behavioral traits, or output. For a tool in a security/enumeration context with many siblings, more context is needed to guide proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description doesn't mention the 'domain' parameter at all, leaving it completely undocumented. With 1 required parameter and no coverage, the description fails to compensate, adding zero semantic value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'List' and resource 'network share(s)', which gives a basic purpose. However, it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from potential siblings like 'list_all_network_shares' or explain what 'ignoring SYSVOL' means operationally. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list includes many enumeration tools, but the description doesn't explain why one would choose this over others (e.g., for security auditing vs. general listing). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing sessions to computers without LAPS but does not clarify if this is a read-only operation, a destructive change, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like session disruption. The term 'Route' suggests a mutation, but without details, transparency is inadequate for safe use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief with two concise phrases, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly terse, lacking necessary details that could enhance clarity without adding verbosity, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving session routing and LAPS status), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses critical information about parameters, behavioral traits, prerequisites, and expected outcomes, failing to provide a comprehensive understanding for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. It fails to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent unsure about what 'domain' represents (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain) or how it relates to the tool's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route all sessions to computers WITHOUT LAPS (Required: sessions)' specifies a verb ('Route') and resource ('sessions to computers WITHOUT LAPS'), indicating it redirects sessions to computers lacking LAPS. However, it is vague about what 'sessions' entails (e.g., user sessions, network sessions) and does not distinguish from siblings like 'route_all_sessions_to_computers', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes '(Required: sessions)', implying a prerequisite but not explaining what 'sessions' are or how to obtain them. It offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like 'list_computers_without_laps' or 'route_all_sessions_to_computers', leaving the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite ('azurehound') but lacks details on what the tool does behaviorally (e.g., what 'route' entails, output format, potential side effects, or rate limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but the [WIP] tag and lack of complete sentences reduce professionalism. It's concise but under-specified, not efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex tool name implying security analysis, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, or how it fits with siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it includes a prerequisite note ('azurehound') that provides some operational context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Route from Azure User principal(s) that have dangerous rights to Azure User and User principal(s)' which provides a basic action and resources, but it's vague about what 'route' means operationally and doesn't distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users'. The [WIP] tag further undermines clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Required: azurehound' which hints at a prerequisite, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other 'route' tools in the sibling list. No context on use cases or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions '[HIGH RAM]' which suggests resource-intensive operation, but doesn't describe what 'dangerous rights' entail, what 'route' actually does (e.g., creates relationships, modifies permissions), what the output looks like, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence fragment plus a bracketed note). While this is concise, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The '[HIGH RAM]' warning is front-loaded but the core description lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a security-focused routing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'non-privileged computers' or 'dangerous rights,' what the routing operation entails, or what results to expect. The '[HIGH RAM]' warning is helpful but insufficient for understanding the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter - what format it expects, what values are valid, or how it affects the operation. This leaves the single required parameter completely undocumented beyond its name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool routes non-privileged computers with dangerous rights to GPOs, which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'route' means operationally and doesn't clearly distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_groups' or 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_users'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[HIGH RAM]' which might imply resource considerations, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to other routing tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'dangerous rights' and '[HIGH RAM]', hinting at security risks and resource intensity, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data or just analyzes), rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence plus a bracketed note. There's no wasted text, making it efficient. However, the note '[HIGH RAM]' is cryptic and could be better integrated or explained, slightly reducing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'dangerous rights' and routing, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It fails to address key aspects like what 'dangerous rights' entail, how routing works, or what results to expect, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain represents, valid formats, or how it influences the routing. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, parameter understanding is inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool routes non-privileged computers with dangerous rights to groups, which provides a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'route' specifically entails (e.g., mapping, assigning, analyzing relationships) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_comps' or 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_users' beyond the target being 'groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions '[HIGH RAM]' which might imply resource considerations, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without clear usage instructions, an agent would struggle to choose this over similar routing tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It hints at high memory usage ('[HIGH RAM]'), but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only analysis, a destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. This leaves the agent guessing about safety and performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence plus a note), which is efficient, but it's not front-loaded with critical information—the '[HIGH RAM]' note is appended rather than integrated. It avoids redundancy but under-specifies key details, making it more sparse than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'dangerous rights' and routing, along with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and safety, making it inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'domain' means in this context (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain) or how it influences the routing. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's role unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Route') and resources ('non-privileged computer(s) with dangerous rights' to 'privileged node(s)'), but it's vague about what 'route' entails (e.g., find paths, list connections, or modify permissions). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'to privileged node(s)' versus other targets like 'comps' or 'users', but lacks specificity on the routing mechanism.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions '[HIGH RAM]', which might imply resource-intensive usage, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_comps' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_priv_nodes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'dangerous rights' and '[HIGH RAM]', indicating potential security risks and high resource usage, but lacks details on what 'routing' does (e.g., enumerates paths, modifies permissions), side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with 'dangerous' in its name and no structured safety hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of one main sentence and a bracketed note. It avoids redundancy but is overly terse, under-specifying key details like what 'routing' entails. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (implied by 'dangerous rights' and routing logic), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits critical details: what 'routing' does, the nature of 'dangerous rights', output format, and safety considerations. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'domain' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain name), its format, or how it influences the routing. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Route[s] non-privileged computer(s) with dangerous rights to user(s)' which specifies the action (routing), resources (computers, users), and context (dangerous rights). However, it's vague about what 'routing' entails (e.g., finding paths, granting access) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_comps' or 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_groups', which target different endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing domain context), exclusions, or compare it to similar sibling tools (e.g., 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_comps' for computers instead of users). The '[HIGH RAM]' tag hints at resource intensity but doesn't clarify usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'route' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only analysis tool or performs actual routing operations, what 'dangerous permissions' entail, what 'any node type' includes, or what the output format might be. For a tool with security implications ('dangerous permissions'), this lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though this brevity contributes to the overall inadequacy. The structure is straightforward but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'dangerous permissions' and routing operations, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, output format, or parameter usage, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't mention the 'domain' parameter at all, nor does it explain what format or scope it expects. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Route[s] non-privileged user(s) with dangerous permissions to any node type', which provides a specific verb ('Route') and target resource ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous permissions'). However, it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_gpos' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps', which appear to route to specific node types rather than 'any node type'. The purpose is somewhat vague about what 'route' means operationally.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that route similar entities to specific node types (e.g., to GPOs, computers, users), there's no indication of when 'any node type' routing is preferred over targeted routing. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions '[HIGH RAM]', hinting at high resource usage, which adds some context. However, it fails to describe critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. The description is insufficient for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with key terms, avoiding unnecessary words. However, the inclusion of '[HIGH RAM]' without explanation adds minor clutter, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it is concise but could be more structured with clearer separation of elements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'dangerous rights' and high resource usage, along with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and security context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. This leaves the parameter's meaning, format, or usage completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema gap and hindering correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Route non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights to user(s) [HIGH RAM]' includes a verb ('Route') and resources ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights' and 'user(s)'), but it is vague about what 'Route' entails (e.g., mapping, analyzing, or transferring rights) and does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_permissions' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps'. This leaves the purpose ambiguous beyond basic action and targets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, such as those involving different targets (e.g., 'to_comps' or 'to_gpos'). Without this, an agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 hints at high RAM usage ('HIGH RAM') and involves 'dangerous rights', suggesting potential security risks or resource intensity, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only analysis, a mutation operation, required permissions, rate limits, or what 'route' entails operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one sentence with a note in brackets), which is efficient and front-loaded. However, the brevity leads to under-specification, as it omits necessary details for clarity and completeness, though it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'dangerous rights' and routing, lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, how it behaves, or parameter meanings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 1 parameter ('domain'), and the description provides no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain), its format, or how it influences the routing. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool routes non-privileged users with dangerous rights to computers, which gives a general purpose (verb+resource). However, it's vague about what 'route' specifically means (e.g., find paths, assign rights, list relationships) and doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_comps' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_permissions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions 'dangerous rights' and 'HIGH RAM' which might imply high-resource usage, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or when to choose this over similar routing tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Dangerous Rights' and 'any node type', hinting at security/permission analysis, but doesn't disclose if this is a read-only query, a mutation, what 'route' entails (e.g., path enumeration, permission changes), or any side effects like data modification or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's slightly cryptic due to technical jargon like 'Dangerous Rights' and 'node type' without elaboration, which reduces clarity but not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and complex security implications (implied by 'Dangerous Rights'), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output format, and safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with 1 parameter ('domain'), and the description adds no information about parameters. It doesn't explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain), its format, or how it influences the routing. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool routes 'owned & enabled user(s) with Dangerous Rights to any node type', which provides a verb ('route') and resource ('users with Dangerous Rights'), but it's vague about what 'route' means operationally (e.g., list paths, modify permissions). It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on listing or finding, but not clearly from other 'route_' tools like 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for users with 'Dangerous Rights', but doesn't specify prerequisites, target scenarios, or compare to similar tools like 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Route' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only query or a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The term 'Dangerous Rights' is undefined, leaving critical security implications unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no wasted words, but it's overly terse and lacks necessary detail. While structurally simple, it under-specifies key aspects, making it less helpful than a more informative yet concise description would be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'Dangerous Rights' and routing operations, with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or security context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('domain') undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'domain' represents, its format, or how it influences the routing. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the parameter's purpose ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Route') and target ('all owned & enabled user(s) with Dangerous Rights to user(s)'), but it's vague about what 'Route' means operationally. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_any' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools involving routing and dangerous rights, the description lacks context about prerequisites, target audience, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others like 'route_azure_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions routing but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what the output format looks like (e.g., paths, lists), whether it's a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly stating inputs/outputs) given the lack of other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by routing operations, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'routing' entails, the result format, or any constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool confidently without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'domain' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter, such as its meaning (e.g., Active Directory domain name), format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter's semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool routes from owned & enabled users to principals with unconstrained delegation, which gives a general purpose. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'route' means operationally (e.g., find paths, list connections) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_from_owned_enabled_principals_to_high_value_targets' or 'list_enabled_principals_with_unconstrained_delegation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for finding relationships involving unconstrained delegation, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'list_enabled_principals_with_unconstrained_delegation' (which lists such principals) or other route tools with different start/end points.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing 'all principal(s) that have control permissions' and from 'privileged ASP to Azure Tenancy', implying a read or analysis operation, but doesn't clarify if it's read-only, destructive, or has side effects. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with two clauses, but includes a [WIP] tag that adds noise without value. It front-loads the main action but could be more structured; for example, separating prerequisites or clarifying the routing mechanism. It's not overly verbose, but the incomplete tag reduces overall effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name and sibling tools (e.g., involving Azure security and routing), the description is insufficient. No annotations or output schema are provided, and the description lacks details on what the tool returns, how it operates, or its security implications. The [WIP] tag indicates it's incomplete, further undermining completeness for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't detract from the schema's clarity, though it could theoretically enhance context if parameters existed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Route all principal(s) that have control permissions to Azure Application(s) running as Azure Service Principals (AzSP), and route from privileged ASP to Azure Tenancy', which provides a verb ('Route') and resources ('principals', 'Azure Application(s)', 'Azure Service Principals', 'Azure Tenancy'). However, it's vague about what 'route' means operationally and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_principals_to_azure_vm' or 'route_user_principals_to_azure_service_principals', leaving ambiguity about scope and target differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Required: azurehound', which is a prerequisite, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify scenarios, conditions, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison. The [WIP] tag suggests incomplete information, further limiting actionable usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses minimal behavioral traits. 'Route' suggests a potential mutation or redirection operation, but it doesn't clarify if this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. The '[Required: sessions]' hint is the only behavioral insight, which is insufficient for a tool that likely performs security-related routing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, though the bracketed note could be integrated more smoothly. It avoids unnecessary elaboration but risks under-specification given the tool's likely complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and the tool's name suggesting a security-oriented routing operation, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'routing' entails, the implications, or what results to expect, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. The single parameter 'domain' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its purpose, format, or constraints unclear. The description mentions 'sessions' but not how it relates to the 'domain' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Route') and target resources ('privileged user(s) with sessions to non-privileged computer(s)'), but is vague about what 'route' means operationally. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on routing sessions rather than listing or finding, but lacks specificity about the routing mechanism or outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes '[Required: sessions]' which implies a prerequisite, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'route_all_sessions_to_computers' or 'list_all_user_sessions'. No context about domain selection or comparison to other routing tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a prerequisite (Certipy) but doesn't describe what the tool does operationally: whether it's a read-only query, what data it returns, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two short phrases, front-loading the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage, and it efficiently communicates the essential information in a minimal structure, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (security/AD-focused), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output format, and use cases, making it incomplete for a tool in this domain where context is critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides no information about the single parameter 'domain', such as its format, purpose, or examples. The description fails to add any semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the parameter's role unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose clearly: 'Find enabled Certificate Template(s)' specifies the verb (find) and resource (enabled certificate templates). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_all_certificate_templates' by focusing on 'enabled' status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description is specific but could be more explicit about the differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: '[Required: Certipy]' hints at a prerequisite tool, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_all_certificate_templates' or vulnerability-specific tools (e.g., 'list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates'). No context on use cases or exclusions is given, leaving the agent with little direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but there's no information about permissions required, rate limits, output format, pagination, or what constitutes 'Authenticated Users' in this context. The description provides only the most basic functional statement without behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses minimal syntax. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Authenticated Users' means in this security/AD context, provides no parameter guidance, and gives no indication of output format or behavioral characteristics. The context demands more explanation than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single 'domain' parameter, and the tool description provides absolutely no information about parameters. The description doesn't mention the required 'domain' parameter at all, leaving the agent with no guidance about what this parameter means or how to use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all "Authenticated Users" group membership(s)' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('"Authenticated Users" group membership(s)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_domain_users_group_memberships' or 'list_all_enabled_azure_users_group_memberships' - it's unclear what distinguishes 'Authenticated Users' from other user types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar-sounding sibling tools (e.g., 'list_all_domain_users_group_memberships', 'list_all_enabled_azure_users_group_memberships'), there's no indication of what 'Authenticated Users' means or when this specific tool is appropriate versus other group membership listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List all GPO(s)' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'List all GPO(s)', a single phrase that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick scanning. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meaning, behavioral context, or output expectations. For a tool in a security/AD context with many siblings, more detail is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter ('domain') undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by the name. It doesn't explain what 'domain' means, its format, or how it affects the listing. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all GPO(s)' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GPO(s)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_gpos' or provide specificity about what 'all' means in context. It's adequate but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that involve GPOs (e.g., 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_gpos'), there's no indication of whether this is for enumeration, analysis, or other contexts. Usage is implied only by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool lists users, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, rate limits, output format, or whether it's destructive. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter meaning, behavioral context, and usage guidelines, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'domain' refers to, its format, or examples, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose: 'List all owned & enabled user(s) with an email address.' It includes a verb ('List') and resource ('owned & enabled user(s)'), but it's vague about what 'owned' means and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users' or 'list_enabled_users_with_email'. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools such as 'list_all_owned_enabled_users' or 'list_enabled_users_with_email', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing users with RDP permission and their sessions/group memberships, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or what 'enabled' and 'non-privileged' mean operationally. The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted wording, though it could benefit from more detail given the complexity of the tool. It's appropriately sized for what it covers, but under-specified relative to needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does at a high level but lacks parameter details, behavioral context, usage guidance, and output expectations. For a security-focused listing tool with session data, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about what 'domain' should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and specifies the target resources: 'enabled non-privileged user(s) with "RDP" permission, and any active sessions and their group membership(s)'. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'list_all_principals_with_rdp_permission' by focusing on non-privileged users and including session/group data, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for finding non-privileged users with RDP access and their sessions/memberships, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare with siblings like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp' or 'list_all_user_sessions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing enabled principals with a specific delegation type, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (security-focused listing with specific delegation criteria), no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively in relation to its many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema provides. With 1 parameter (domain) and 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'domain' means in this context, its format, or examples. This leaves the parameter poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists enabled principals with 'Unconstrained Delegation', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_principals_with_constrained_delegation' or other principal-listing tools, making it somewhat vague about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools listing principals, users, or groups, there's no indication of specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool's use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions listing users but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what 'enabled' and 'with an email address' entail operationally. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential security or data implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (listing users in a domain with email criteria), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address return values, error conditions, or operational context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't explain what 'domain' means, its format, or how it filters results. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose as 'List enabled user(s) with an email address', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('enabled user(s)'), but lacks detail on scope or output format. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_all_enabled_users' or 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_email', making it adequate but with gaps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for listing users (e.g., 'list_all_enabled_users', 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_email'), the description offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite (Certipy) but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally: whether it performs active scanning, passive querying, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what format/output to expect. The description is too sparse for a security assessment tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence plus a note), which could be appropriate if it contained sufficient information. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The prerequisite note is helpful but the main description lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a security vulnerability assessment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what ESC3 vulnerability is, what the tool returns, what permissions are needed, or how results should be interpreted. The prerequisite mention is the only contextual element provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving the single required 'domain' parameter completely unexplained. The description provides zero semantic context about what the domain parameter represents or how it should be formatted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('ESC3 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from general certificate template tools by specifying 'ESC3 vulnerable' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ESC vulnerability tools (like list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates) beyond the vulnerability type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance with '[Required: Certipy]' indicating a prerequisite tool, but offers no explicit context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain what ESC3 vulnerability is, when to check for it, or how it differs from other ESC vulnerability tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions '[HIGH RAM]', hinting at resource-intensive behavior, which adds some value. However, it fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output entails, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potentially dangerous implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but it's overly terse. The single sentence lacks necessary details, and the '[HIGH RAM]' note is appended without integration, making it feel incomplete rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name suggests a complex, potentially high-impact operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It omits essential context like behavioral risks, parameter usage, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for safe and effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'domain' represents, its format, or how it influences the routing, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('route') and the entities involved ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights' to 'privileged node(s)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_non_priv_comps_dangerous_rights_to_priv_nodes' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users', which have similar naming patterns but target different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, specific scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., other 'route' tools for different targets), leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions '[HIGH RAM]' which adds useful context about resource consumption, but doesn't disclose other critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, potential side effects, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with 'dangerous rights' in its name, more safety and operational details are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence plus a note) and front-loaded with the core action, but the '[HIGH RAM]' note feels tacked on without integration. While not wasteful, it lacks the polished structure of a well-crafted description that efficiently conveys all necessary information in a logical flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'dangerous rights' routing, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'dangerous rights', how routing works, what the output looks like, or any prerequisites. The '[HIGH RAM]' note is helpful but insufficient for a tool that appears to perform security analysis operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'domain' means in this context, what format it expects, or how it affects the routing operation. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Route') and the target resources ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous rights to group(s)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_comps', which route to different target types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that route dangerous rights to different targets (e.g., users, computers, GPOs), there's no indication of why one would choose groups specifically. The '[HIGH RAM]' note hints at resource intensity but doesn't clarify usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Route' but fails to clarify if this is a read-only analysis, a destructive operation, or involves mutations. Critical details like permissions needed, rate limits, or output format are omitted, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it efficient in structure, though this brevity contributes to informational gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving 'dangerous rights' and routing), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral risks, parameter meaning, or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. It does not explain what 'domain' means in this context (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain) or how it influences the routing process, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Route') and target resources ('all owned & enabled user(s) with Dangerous Rights to group(s)'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'Route' specifically entails (e.g., mapping, transferring, analyzing paths) and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_any' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups', leaving ambiguity in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description lacks context on prerequisites, target scenarios, or comparisons to siblings such as 'route_owned_users_dangerous_rights_to_any' or 'route_non_priv_users_dangerous_rights_to_groups', offering only a basic statement without usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'azurehound' as a requirement but doesn't describe what the tool actually does (e.g., finds paths, enumerates permissions, performs analysis), what output to expect, or any operational characteristics like performance or side effects. The [WIP] tag further indicates incomplete information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two short phrases) but includes a [WIP] tag that adds noise without value. The first phrase states the purpose, the second states a requirement - both relevant but the overall structure is minimal and could be more polished for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a [WIP] designation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'route' means in this context, what results to expect, or how this differs from other routing tools. The azurehound requirement is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so there's no parameter documentation burden. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline for this situation is 4 since the schema fully covers the empty parameter set.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Route from principal(s) to Azure VM' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'route' means operationally. The [WIP] tag indicates it's incomplete, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling route_* tools like 'route_principals_to_azure_apps_and_sps' or 'route_principals_to_global_administrators'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite 'Required: azurehound' which provides some usage context, but it doesn't explain when to use this specific routing tool versus other routing alternatives in the sibling list. The guidance is implied rather than explicit about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'Route' which suggests a query or analysis operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The [WIP] tag indicates missing details, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two parts: the routing statement and the prerequisite note. However, the [WIP] tag and lack of complete sentences reduce its effectiveness. It's somewhat efficient but under-specified, not fully earning its place as a clear, standalone description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'route' operations in sibling tools, no annotations, no output schema, and the [WIP] tag, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively. This is inadequate for a tool in this domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is acceptable in this case. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Route from principal(s) to principal(s) with Global Administrator permissions' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what 'route' means operationally (e.g., find paths, list relationships). The [WIP] tag indicates it's incomplete, and it doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_from_owned_enabled_principals_to_high_value_targets' or 'route_principals_to_azure_apps_and_sps'. This is better than a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Required: azurehound' which implies a prerequisite tool or context for usage, providing some guidance. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'route_' tools) or any exclusions. The guidance is implied but not explicit, falling short of clear contextual instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions 'dangerous rights' and 'AdminSDHolder object', implying a security-focused read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, what 'dangerous rights' entail, potential impacts, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, and the lack of structure (e.g., separating purpose from context) slightly reduces clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by 'dangerous rights' and 'AdminSDHolder', no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's scope, security implications, or what results to expect, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter 'domain' undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'domain' represents (e.g., Active Directory domain name) or how it relates to finding paths. This doesn't compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'allshortestpaths with dangerous rights to AdminSDHolder object', making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_allshortestpaths_with_dcsync_to_domain' or 'find_allshortestpaths_with_shadow_credential_permission', which have similar 'find allshortestpaths' patterns but target different objects or rights.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools focused on paths, rights, or dangerous permissions, the lack of differentiation leaves usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the azurehound requirement but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (format, structure, completeness), whether it's a read-only operation, potential performance impact, or any limitations. The '[WIP]' tag suggests incomplete information, further reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief at two sentences, but includes the unhelpful '[WIP]' tag that adds no operational value. The core information is front-loaded, but the structure could be improved by removing the WIP marker and providing a cleaner statement of purpose and requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and the tool's apparent complexity (involving AD/Azure relationships), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'edges' means, what format results are returned in, whether this is a comprehensive list or filtered view, or how it differs from similar tools. The '[WIP]' tag explicitly signals incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't attempt to describe any. The azurehound requirement is noted but isn't a parameter, so it doesn't affect this score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool lists AD principals with edges to Azure principals, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it's somewhat vague about the exact nature of 'edges' and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'list_all_principals_with_azure_tenancy_access' or 'route_principals_to_azure_apps_and_sps' that might handle related Azure/AD relationships.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with the '[WIP]' tag and mentions 'Required: azurehound' as a prerequisite, but offers no explicit when-to-use instructions, no comparison to alternatives, and no context about when this tool is preferred over other Azure/AD relationship tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what the tool returns (users with RDP permission, sessions, group memberships) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'owned' means in this context. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that packs multiple criteria. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating user criteria from returned data). There's no wasted text, and the key information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies what the tool returns but doesn't cover the required parameter, behavioral aspects, or output format. For a tool with one required parameter and complex filtering logic, this leaves too much undefined for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the single parameter 'domain' is undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about parameters, not even mentioning that a domain parameter is required or what it represents. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to provide for the domain input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and the specific resource ('all owned & enabled user(s) with "RDP" permission, and any active sessions and their group membership(s)'). It distinguishes from many siblings by combining ownership, enabled status, RDP permission, sessions, and group memberships. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp_and_sessions' which appears similar.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for listing users with specific attributes, but doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or returns structured data. The '[WIP]' tag suggests it's incomplete, but this does not add useful context for the agent. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one sentence, but the '[WIP]' tag is extraneous and does not aid the agent. The sentence is front-loaded with the purpose, but it lacks structure (e.g., no elaboration on output or usage). It is minimally adequate but not polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving AD/AAD sync principals) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'principal(s)' includes, the format of results, or any limitations. The '[WIP]' tag indicates it's a work in progress, further reducing completeness for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets the requirement for a tool with no parameters, though it could be a 5 if the description were more robust overall.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the purpose ('List all principal(s) used for syncing AD and AAD'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb 'List' and resource 'principal(s)', but lacks detail on what 'principal(s)' entails (e.g., users, groups, service accounts) or the scope (e.g., all domains, specific sync configurations). It does not distinguish from siblings like 'list_all_ad_principals_with_edges_to_azure_principals' or 'list_all_aad_groups_synchronized_with_ad', which are related but not identical.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., during security audits, sync troubleshooting), or exclusions. With many sibling tools focused on AD/AAD principals and sync, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite ('Certipy') but doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence plus a bracketed note. While efficient, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the note about Certipy might be better integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It mentions a prerequisite but doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meaning, or expected results. Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (security/AD-focused), more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('Certificate Authority server(s)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_domain_controllers' or 'list_domains' that also list resources, and the '[Required: Certipy]' note is about prerequisites rather than purpose distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions '[Required: Certipy]' which indicates a prerequisite, but doesn't explain context, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_privileges_for_certificate_authority_servers' or other listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a required tool (Certipy), hinting at external dependencies, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of templates with details), or any potential side effects like network scanning. For a security tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, consisting of two concise parts: the main action and a prerequisite note. There's no unnecessary fluff, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the structure could be improved by separating the prerequisite into a separate sentence for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (security vulnerability scanning), lack of annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what ESC1 vulnerabilities are, what the output contains, or how to interpret results, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively in a security assessment scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the parameter 'domain' is undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about this parameter—it doesn't explain what 'domain' refers to (e.g., Active Directory domain name), its format, or examples. This leaves the agent guessing, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('ESC1 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_esc2_vulnerable_certificate_templates' or 'find_enabled_certificate_templates', which would require explaining what makes ESC1 vulnerabilities distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite ('Required: Certipy'), which provides some context for when to use it, but offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like other ESC vulnerability listers or general certificate template tools. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the Certipy requirement, failing to describe what the tool does (e.g., how it identifies vulnerabilities, output format, whether it's read-only or has side effects). This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a security tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with two key pieces of information (action/resource and requirement) in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary words, though the bracketed note could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (security vulnerability scanning), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and how it differs from siblings. The Certipy note is helpful but insufficient for a tool that likely returns sensitive security findings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('domain') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'domain' means, its format, or how it's used. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving the parameter's purpose unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'ESC6 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)', providing a specific action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_certificate_templates' by specifying vulnerability type (ESC6), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other ESC vulnerability tools (e.g., list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite '[Required: Certipy]', indicating a dependency, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain when to choose this over other ESC vulnerability tools or general certificate template listing tools, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (lists vulnerable templates) and a prerequisite (Certipy), but doesn't describe what 'vulnerable' means operationally, what the output format is, whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance/rate limit considerations. Significant behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two short phrases) with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes prerequisite information efficiently. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a security vulnerability scanning tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes ESC8 vulnerability, what the output contains, or how results should be interpreted. The prerequisite note is helpful but insufficient for proper tool understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), and the description provides no information about the single 'domain' parameter. The agent must infer parameter meaning from the tool name alone. The description adds zero value beyond what's already absent in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target ('ESC8 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)'), which is specific and distinguishes it from general certificate template tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other ESC vulnerability tools like list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates beyond the ESC8 designation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite '[Required: Certipy]', which provides some usage context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_all_certificate_templates or other ESC vulnerability tools. No explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the format of output (e.g., structured data vs. raw text). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries sensitive domain data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could benefit from slight restructuring for better readability (e.g., breaking into clauses). Overall, it is appropriately concise for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (querying users, permissions, sessions, and group memberships), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. It fails to explain what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain name, network domain), its format, or examples, leaving the parameter undocumented and unclear for proper invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and specifies the resource as 'enabled non-privileged user(s) with "Local Admin" permission, and any active sessions and their group membership(s)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin' by including sessions and group memberships, but could be more explicit about this differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin' or 'list_all_user_sessions'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions routing between principals and Azure Service Principals, implying a read or analysis operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it performs mutations, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The [WIP] tag suggests incomplete information, further limiting transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but the [WIP] tag and lack of complete sentences reduce its effectiveness. It could be more structured, such as by separating the routing directions and prerequisite into clearer points. While not verbose, it feels underdeveloped rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by routing operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'control permissions' entail, how routing is performed, or what results to expect. The [WIP] tag explicitly signals it's a work in progress, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool routes user principals to Azure Service Principals and vice versa, which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'route' means operationally and doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'route_principals_to_azure_apps_and_sps' or 'route_azure_users_with_dangerous_rights_to_users'. The [WIP] tag indicates it's incomplete, further reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite 'Required: azurehound', which provides some usage context, but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus similar routing tools in the sibling list. No explicit alternatives, exclusions, or scenarios are mentioned, leaving the agent with minimal guidance on appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (querying user login data), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior, output, or parameter usage effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or how it affects the query. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all enabled user(s) that logged in within the last 90 days'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'list_all_enabled_users_never_logged_in' or 'list_all_enabled_users_set_password_last_90_days', which would have required a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone among many similar-sounding siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'enabled' and 'never logged in' but doesn't clarify behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, clear sentence. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a parameter-heavy context (1 required param), the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but omits critical details about parameters, behavior, and output, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. It doesn't explain what 'domain' refers to (e.g., Active Directory domain, Azure tenant), its format, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all enabled user(s) but never logged in'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on login status, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'list_enabled_users' or 'list_all_enabled_users_logged_in_last_90_days'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools with overlapping scopes (e.g., 'list_enabled_users', 'list_all_enabled_users_logged_in_last_90_days'), the description offers no context for selection, leaving the agent to infer based on names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists users but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), what output format to expect (e.g., list of user objects), if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific authentication. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words: 'List all enabled user(s) that set password within the last 90 days.' It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the scope. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the context: no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter meaning, output format, and usage context. For a tool in a security-focused environment with many siblings, this minimal description doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. This leaves the 'domain' parameter completely undocumented in both the schema and description, which is inadequate for a required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all enabled user(s) that set password within the last 90 days.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('enabled user(s)'), and a key filter condition ('set password within the last 90 days'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_enabled_users_logged_in_last_90_days' or 'list_enabled_users_pwd_never_expires_unchanged_1yr', which focus on different user attributes or timeframes, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing domain context or permissions, or compare it to sibling tools that list users based on other criteria (e.g., login activity or password expiration). Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose this tool appropriately among many similar listing tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a real-time query versus cached data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'enabled' means, clarify the 'don't require passwords' attribute, or provide any context about the tool's role in security assessments or Active Directory management.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'domain', and the tool description adds no parameter information. The agent must guess what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain, Azure tenant) and its expected format, leaving a significant gap in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the target resource ('all enabled user(s) with "don't require passwords" attribute'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_enabled_users_with_password_never_expires' or 'list_all_enabled_users_with_userpassword_attribute', which also focus on password-related user attributes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many similar-sounding sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'List', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing users with a specific attribute), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual elements like output format, error handling, or domain-specific nuances, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about this parameter. The description adds no information about parameters, such as what 'domain' represents, its format, or examples. Since the schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all enabled user(s) with "password never expires" attribute', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_enabled_users_pwd_never_expires_unchanged_1yr', which might target a subset or different criteria, leaving some ambiguity about uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other user-listing tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'list_enabled_users' or 'list_enabled_users_pwd_never_expires_unchanged_1yr'). It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a query versus cached data. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral context, and output, making it inadequate for a tool with one required parameter and complex sibling relationships.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one parameter ('domain') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It doesn't explain what 'domain' represents or its expected format, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all owned & enabled user(s) with "SQLAdmin" permission'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users' or 'list_all_principals_with_sqladmin_permission', which would require more precise scope definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools targeting similar resources (e.g., 'list_all_owned_enabled_users', 'list_all_principals_with_sqladmin_permission'), the description lacks context on selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, clear sentence. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. This is appropriate for a simple-sounding tool, though it may sacrifice detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (e.g., security/permission-related operations), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details about behavior, parameters, and differentiation from alternatives, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. It doesn't explain what 'domain' refers to (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain) or how it affects the listing. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all principal(s) with "Local Admin" permission'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin' or 'users_with_most_local_admin_rights', which appear to have overlapping scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that seem related to local admin permissions (e.g., 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin', 'users_with_most_local_admin_rights'), there is no indication of how this tool differs in scope, filtering, or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it's a query against a database or active directory. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions or output format, nor does it explain the single required parameter. For a security/AD-related listing tool, this leaves too much unspecified for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't explain what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain), its format, or how it affects the listing, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all principal(s) with "SQLAdmin" permission'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_sqladmin' by focusing on all principals rather than owned ones, though this differentiation isn't explicitly stated in the description itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with sibling tools like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_sqladmin' or 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_sqladmin', leaving the agent to infer usage based on naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without explaining behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this lack of detail is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (filtering users by multiple criteria), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details such as parameter explanations, behavioral context, and output information, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('domain') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. This leaves the agent without understanding what 'domain' refers to or how to use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List enabled non-privileged user(s) with "Local Admin" permission' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('enabled non-privileged user(s)'), specifying the exact type of users targeted. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_enabled_users' by adding the 'non-privileged' and 'Local Admin' criteria, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools such as 'list_principals_with_local_admin_permission' or 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp', making it slightly less specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'list_principals_with_local_admin_permission' (which might include privileged users) or 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp' (which focuses on RDP permissions). This leaves the agent without clear usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. The description only repeats the tool's core function without adding operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded despite its minimalism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'enabled' or 'non-privileged' mean operationally, how RDP permission is determined, what the output format looks like, or any behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. The single required 'domain' parameter receives no explanation in the description about its format, purpose, or acceptable values. This leaves the agent guessing about proper parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target ('enabled non-privileged user(s) with "RDP" permission'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'list_all_principals_with_rdp_permission' by specifying 'enabled non-privileged users', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp_and_sessions' which adds session information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare with similar tools like 'list_all_principals_with_rdp_permission' or 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_rdp_and_sessions'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it's destructive. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving user permissions and SQLAdmin), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'enabled', 'non-privileged', or 'SQLAdmin permission', nor does it describe the return format or any behavioral constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single required parameter 'domain', and the tool description provides no information about parameters. This leaves the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints completely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target ('enabled non-privileged user(s) with "SQLAdmin" permission'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users_with_sqladmin' by specifying 'non-privileged' users, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other SQLAdmin-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'enabled' and 'Constrained Delegation' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if it's safe to run, output format, or any rate limits. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to scan. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (security tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, output, and usage context. For a tool that likely interacts with sensitive systems like Active Directory, more guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, with one required parameter ('domain') undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'domain' means (e.g., Active Directory domain name), its format, or examples. This leaves the parameter semantics unclear, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the target ('enabled principal(s) with "Constrained Delegation"'), which is a specific security-related resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_enabled_principals_with_unconstrained_delegation' by specifying the delegation type, though it could be more explicit about what 'principals' encompass (e.g., users, computers).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it's for listing principals with constrained delegation, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., domain context), contrast with similar tools like 'list_enabled_principals_with_unconstrained_delegation', or indicate typical use cases (e.g., security auditing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the query criteria but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., format, fields, pagination), potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the query (multiple criteria), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies the filter criteria but omits critical details about parameters, return values, and behavioral context, making it inadequate for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. It doesn't explain what 'domain' refers to (e.g., Active Directory domain, network domain), expected format, or examples. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and the specific resource ('all enabled user(s) with "password never expires" attribute and not changed in last year'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_enabled_users_with_password_never_expires', which appears to be a similar but potentially broader query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for usage, or compare it to sibling tools that might overlap (e.g., 'list_all_enabled_users_with_password_never_expires'). This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't specify if it's safe, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The description lacks crucial context for a security-focused tool, such as whether it returns sensitive data or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the parameter, behavioral traits, or expected output format, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool effectively in a complex security context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the single required parameter 'domain'. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or its role in filtering results, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented beyond the schema's basic type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all enabled SVC account(s) with privileged group membership(s)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_authenticated_users_group_memberships' or 'list_privileged_users_without_protected_users', which reduces clarity about its unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many similar-sounding sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions a prerequisite (Certipy) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential impacts on the system, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a security-related tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only two short phrases, front-loading the main purpose and adding a prerequisite note. There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of security vulnerability listing, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meaning, output format, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or any constraints, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's basic type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the specific resource ('ESC7 vulnerable Certificate Template(s)'), which distinguishes it from general listing tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_esc1_vulnerable_certificate_templates' beyond the ESC7 identifier, which is implied but not stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite '[Required: Certipy]', which provides some context on when to use it (i.e., when Certipy is available). However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'find_enabled_certificate_templates' or other ESC vulnerability tools, nor does it specify exclusions or complementary tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what data is returned but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential performance impact, or how results are formatted (e.g., pagination). The description is insufficient for a tool that likely queries sensitive directory data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads all key information: listing, resource type, and additional data. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'owned' means in context, how sessions are determined as 'active', what format the output takes, or provide any behavioral context. The description leaves too many gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what format the domain should be in, whether it's required for all queries, or provide examples. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and specifies the resource as 'owned & enabled user(s) with "Local Admin" permission' along with additional data about 'active sessions and their group membership(s)'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_all_owned_enabled_users' by adding the local admin filter and session information, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for 'owned' users, or differentiate from similar tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin' or 'list_all_principals_with_local_admin_permission', leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool lists users but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, potential performance impact, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of security auditing tools, no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and output, making it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain parameter represents, its format, or any constraints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and specifies the target as 'privileged user(s) without "Protected Users" group membership', which is specific and understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a specific security gap (privileged users lacking protection), though it doesn't explicitly compare to other tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_high_value_targets' or 'list_enabled_principals_with_constrained_delegation', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists users but fails to describe key traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what 'dangerous permissions' entail, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose. It earns its place by directly stating what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving non-privileged users, dangerous permissions, and node types), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, output format, and parameter meaning, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about the 'domain' parameter. It doesn't explain what the domain represents, expected format, or constraints, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage unclear beyond the schema's basic type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('non-privileged user(s) with dangerous permissions to any node type'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_enabled_non_privileged_users_with_local_admin' or 'route_non_privileged_users_with_dangerous_permissions', which appear to have overlapping scopes, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the many sibling tools that list or route non-privileged users with various permissions. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions a prerequisite ('azurehound'), which hints at authentication or tool dependencies, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, output format, or any side effects. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it includes a '[WIP]' tag, which adds noise and suggests it's incomplete. The single sentence is efficient, but the tag detracts from clarity and professionalism, making it less concise than it could be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (listing synchronized groups) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'synchronized with AD' entails, the format or scope of the output, or any limitations. The '[WIP]' tag further indicates incompleteness, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline. No additional parameter information is required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all AAD Group(s) that are synchronized with AD', which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_all_groups' by specifying synchronization with AD, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'list_all_principals_used_for_syncing_ad_and_aad'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite 'Required: azurehound', which provides some usage context, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any specific scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools that might handle related data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite ('azurehound') which hints at authentication or tool dependency, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, if there are rate limits, or how 'enabled' is defined. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (one sentence) and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes a parenthetical note that could be integrated more smoothly. While efficient, it feels slightly fragmented rather than optimally structured, and the prerequisite information might benefit from clearer separation or emphasis.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (security/audit context) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enabled' means in Azure context, what data is returned, or how this tool fits into broader workflows. For a tool in what appears to be a security assessment suite, more context about use cases and output expectations is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't discuss parameters. The baseline for 0 parameters with full coverage is 4, as the description correctly focuses on other aspects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all enabled Azure User(s)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on Azure users rather than AD users or other entities, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'list_enabled_users' or 'list_all_principals_with_azure_tenancy_access'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite ('Required: azurehound'), which provides some context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools querying users, groups, and Azure resources, there's no indication of when this specific Azure user listing is preferred over other user-focused or Azure-focused tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite ('azurehound'), which adds some context, but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, output format, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). The description is too sparse for a tool with no annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief (one sentence with a parenthetical note), which is concise but borders on under-specification. It front-loads the core purpose but lacks structural elements like bullet points or separate clauses for guidelines, making it minimalistic rather than optimally structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving Azure users and group memberships), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a prerequisite but omits details on behavior, output, or operational context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequate handling in this context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and target resource ('all enabled Azure User(s) Azure Group membership(s)'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., 'list_all_enabled_azure_users' lists users, not memberships), but could better differentiate from similar tools like 'list_all_authenticated_users_group_memberships' or 'list_all_domain_users_group_memberships' by specifying Azure-specific scope more explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with the note '(Required: azurehound)', which hints at a prerequisite tool or context, but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools is made, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a requirement ('azurehound') but doesn't describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—such as whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output is in, if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short with two phrases, which is efficient, but it lacks structure and could be more informative. While it's not verbose, the under-specification means it doesn't fully earn its place—it could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming wordy. It's concise but not optimally helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by sibling tools (e.g., Azure/AD security tools) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a requirement but doesn't explain what 'Tenancy' means, what the output looks like, or how this tool fits into the broader context of security assessments. For a tool in this domain, more contextual information is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is justified as the description doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all Tenancy', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_all_aad_groups_synchronized_with_ad' or 'list_all_ad_principals_with_edges_to_azure_principals' that also list Azure/AD-related entities, leaving room for confusion about what exactly 'Tenancy' refers to in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite 'Required: azurehound', which provides some context on when this tool might be needed, but it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_principals_with_azure_tenancy_access' or other Azure-related listing tools. There's no explicit when/when-not usage advice or sibling tool comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool executes queries and returns results, but doesn't specify whether this is read-only or can modify data, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, what format the results come in, or any error conditions. For a general query execution tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Chinese/English mix slightly affects readability. The structure helps the agent understand inputs and outputs, but could be more polished with consistent language.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a general query execution tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what Cypher queries are appropriate, what database/system is being queried, what security implications exist, or what the result format looks like. Given the complexity of executing arbitrary queries and the rich sibling tool context, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly documents both parameters (query and parameters) with their purposes, which adds value beyond the schema that has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide examples of valid Cypher queries, explain the parameter dictionary format, or give guidance on query construction. With 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description does the minimum to compensate but could provide more practical guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '執行Cypher查詢並返回結果' (Execute Cypher query and return results). This specifies both the action (execute query) and the resource (Cypher query results), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which appear to be more specific pre-defined queries rather than general query execution tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools listed. Given that all siblings appear to be specific pre-defined queries for security/Active Directory scenarios, this tool seems to be a general-purpose query executor, but this distinction isn't mentioned. There's no indication of when to use this versus the more specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a prerequisite ('azurehound'), which adds some context about dependencies, but fails to describe key behaviors such as whether this is a read-only operation, what 'privileged access' entails, potential rate limits, output format, or any destructive effects. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two key pieces of information: the action and a prerequisite. However, it includes '[WIP]' which is unnecessary noise and detracts from clarity. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the overall brevity borders on under-specification given the lack of behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (involving Azure Tenancy and privileged access), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'privileged access' means, the scope of listing (e.g., all principals vs. filtered), output format, or any behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. This aligns with the baseline for zero parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for, but it doesn't add extra semantic value beyond what the schema implies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all principal(s)') and the target ('with privileged access to Azure Tenancy'), which is specific and informative. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_owned_users_with_azure_tenancy_access' or 'list_all_principals_with_edges_to_azure_principals', which might cover similar or overlapping functionality, so it misses the highest score for sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite ('Required: azurehound'), which provides some context for when to use this tool. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'find_owned_users_with_azure_tenancy_access' for owned users only) or any exclusions, leaving usage implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![BloodHound-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/stevenyu113228/BloodHound-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/stevenyu113228/BloodHound-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![BloodHound-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/stevenyu113228/BloodHound-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/stevenyu113228/BloodHound-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/stevenyu113228/BloodHound-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server