ntds_get_object_sid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses meaningful traits: it reports not-found, ambiguity, and incomplete evidence explicitly, and never selects an arbitrary duplicate. It does not state permissions, read-only status, or performance characteristics, but the ambiguity and duplicate-handling behavior is unusually well specified.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the key behavioral guarantee about ambiguity and duplicates.

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 explained. However, for a six-parameter forensic tool with only partial schema coverage, the description omits important input semantics and prerequisites around the offline NTDS path and scan limits, leaving the definition only minimally complete.

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 50%, and the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters such as max_chars, diagnostic_limit, and ntds_path. It reinforces the exact SAM selector requirement, but that is already in the schema, and other parameters like max_scan and domain_dn are left entirely to the schema.

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 a clear verb and resource: resolve an exact SAM selector to offline NTDS SID metadata. It is specific enough to distinguish the operation from generic object lookup, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool ntds_get_object_by_sam.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool for exact SAM selector resolution to SID metadata. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative sibling is named for cases where object lookup rather than SID resolution is wanted.

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