signalgrid_mdm_status

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

The description adds important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it discloses that profile listing may require elevation but raw output is returned either way, and explains that null booleans mean the state could not be determined. This transparency complements the readOnly and idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the primary purpose, adds a brief relevance note, then presents the return format in a clear bullet-like list. Each sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 output schema is included, the description goes beyond by explaining the semantic meaning of the booleans and the elevation note. It provides enough context for the agent to interpret results and understand the tool's role in trust assessment, making it complete for a read-only inspection tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description appropriately does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because with zero parameters, the description cannot add more than the schema, and it already includes the return format which is the main needed semantic.

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 identifies the tool's function: reporting MDM enrollment state (including DEP) and installed configuration profiles. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on MDM status, contrasting with other signalgrid tools like installed_apps or network_posture.

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 clear context by labeling this as a 'key managed-device signal' and explicitly noting that an unenrolled corporate Mac is a trust gap, implying it should be consulted for security assessments. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which would earn a 5.

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