ThreatLocker Versions

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructe behavior. The description adds useful context: permissions required, response fields, and the claim 'No pagination — returns all versions in a single response.' However, that claim is in tension with the fetchAllPages parameter in the schema, which makes the behavioral guidance slightly inconsistent.

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-organized into summary, workflows, permissions, pagination, response fields, and related tools; every section serves a purpose. Minor repetition of 'action=list' in each workflow bullet pads the text slightly, but it remains easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present and strong annotations, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it still enumerates permissions, no-pagination behavior, key response fields, and common workflows. The only notable gap is the ambiguity between the 'No pagination' statement and the fetchAllPages parameter, which an agent would need to reconcile before calling.

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 clear enum/default/description for every parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces action=list and lists key response fields, but it adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The 'No pagination' note also mildly conflicts with the fetchAllPages parameter, preventing a higher score.

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 'Query available ThreatLocker agent versions,' a clear verb and resource, and then specifies what is returned: enabled versions, default version, and release dates. It also references related tools and workflows, helping distinguish it from siblings like computers and computer_groups.

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 'Common workflows' section gives concrete scenarios with action=list, such as finding the latest version, checking availability, and identifying defaults. It also points to related tools like computers for installed versions and scheduled_actions for updates, though it stops short of explicit 'use X instead' exclusions.

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