ntds_get_domain_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add meaningful non-obvious context: evidence-backed forest-root identification, retained uncertainty in local-domain attribution, and explicit refusal to guess SID prefixes or extract credentials. It still does not state read-only safety or performance characteristics, but the disclosed limitations are valuable.

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 two dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by caveats. It avoids repetition and wasted words, though the technical phrasing is somewhat compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a five-parameter tool with no annotations and only 40% schema coverage, the description leaves usage selection and parameter meaning largely unexplained.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate but does not mention any parameter semantics. Terms like max_scan, max_chars, diagnostic_limit, and domain_dn are left entirely to the schema, and the required ntds_path is undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: read domain metadata and forest-root identification from offline NTDS. It is clear enough to distinguish from object lookup tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as ntds_get_trusts.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. It implies a domain-metadata read from an offline NTDS file, but offers no explicit selection guidance.

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