ninja_query_computer_systems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what information is queried but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the response. The lack of output schema further amplifies the gap.

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 a single concise sentence (14 words) that front-loads the core action and scope. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous text. It is optimally brief while conveying essential information.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the fundamental purpose but omits contextual details like how pagination works, whether filtering applies globally or per device, or what the response format looks like. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 100%, with each parameter (df, pageSize, cursor) having a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own definitions. Given the high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding of the 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 clearly states the specific action (Query), target resource (computer system hardware information), and the data fields retrieved (make, model, serial number). It also clarifies scope ('across all devices'). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like ninja_get_device or ninja_query_processors, which have different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., ninja_get_device, ninja_list_devices, ninja_search_devices, or other ninja_query_* tools). There is no explicit context on when this tool is appropriate, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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