list_domain_trusts

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.