ThreatLocker Computers

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-readOnly behavior, and the description reinforcees and expands this with critical nuances: delete removes from Portal but does NOT uninstall, get returns editable record not live protection state, restart_org can hit child orgs, and remove_dupicate is for duplicate records. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds material safety-relevant behavior.

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?

Well-organized into labeled sections: Common workflows, Pitfalls, Permissions, Pagination, Key response fields, Related tools. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, then bullet lists that are easy to scan. It is long, but appropriate for a 34-parameter multi-action tool where every section adds load-bearing 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?

Given the large parameter count, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: how to find computers, what each major action does, permissions needed, pagination behavior, key response fields, and related tools. No critical gap that would leave an agent guessing how to invoke the tool for common workflows.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by combining parameters into workflows (e.g. deleteComputers all in same org, fetchAllPages for paginated list/checkins, move_org requires osType + target ids). It doesn't fully enumerate every action's required parameter set, but the workflows and pitfalls cover the most important combinations.

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?

Opens with a clear verb + resource ('Query and inspect ThreatLocker computers') and the workflow list gives concrete action+parameter combinations for each major operation. The Related tools section explicitly names computer_groups, maintenance_mode, and action_log, distinguishing this tool from its siblings. Although the opening phrase 'Query and inspect' slightly undersells the mutating/delete actions, the workflow list quickly disambiguates.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with exact action+parameter recipes, e.g. 'Find computers by logged-in user: action=list, searchBy=2, searchText="username"'. Pitfalls direct agents away from get for live state and toward list or maintenance_mode history. It also positions the tool as the triage entry point and recommends hand-off to maintenance_mode, approval_requests, or action_log.

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