get_report_queries_ad_computers_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method and parameter placement, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, response format, required authentication, or any side effects. For a read operation, the lack of explicit safety confirmation is a 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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then concisely maps parameters to locations. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool has an output schema but no annotations, and the description is minimal, an agent would struggle to know what 'ad computers view' returns, what filters are available, or what route IDs are needed. The description is not complete enough for a tool with 4 generic parameters and 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, and the schema parameters are generic (body, query, headers, path_params) with no property details. The description adds that path_params should contain route IDs, query should contain filters and pagination, and headers should contain required request headers, but it doesn't specify which route IDs, which filters, or which headers. This is minimal compensation for a 0% coverage 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 specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('ad computers view'), and names the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes itself from other report query tools by naming the specific view, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_report_queries_ad_users_view or get_report_queries_get_computer_details.

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 implies usage by specifying where to put route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers, but it doesn't state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context is clear for a generic GET endpoint but lacks explicit guidance on when this specific view is appropriate.

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