find_enabled_certificate_templates

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.