tie_deviances

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses server-side date filtering, defaults to the last 24h, truncation of attribute values when verbose=False, pagination behavior, and show_ignored semantics. It stops short of mentioning authentication, rate limits, or error handling, but for a read-only search tool it provides substantial 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a one-sentence summary, a clarifying note about time windows, and a bulleted Args list. It is longer due to 11 parameters, but each sentence and bullet is informative. A tighter wording (e.g., combining some defaults) could slightly improve it, but it is not bloated.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, defaults, and endpoint behavior. It mentions server-side execution and verbose truncation, which helps infer return shape, but it does not explicitly describe the response structure or error scenarios. Still, it is nearly complete for a list/query tool.

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. The 'Args' section explains all 11 parameters with types, defaults, and formats (e.g., 'ISO 8601 UTC start', 'default: all directories in scope', 'ignored if date_start given'). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 opens with 'Find AD objects with IoE deviances for a checker within a time window,' which is a specific verb + resource + scope statement. It clearly positions this as the time-filterable deviance query, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tie_deviances_by_checker, tie_deviances_bulk, and tie_deviances_by_directory.

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 explicitly frames this as 'the time-filterable deviance query' and explains when to use hours vs. explicit date_start/date_end, implying this is the go-to for time-windowed deviance lookups. It also cross-references tie_profiles for profile selection, offering practical context, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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