find_all_owned_groups_granting_network_share_access

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.