get_report_queries_get_computer_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it is a GET call, implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm safety or side effects. It also says nothing about response structure, required permissions, or what happens if parameters are omitted. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with no filler. The endpoint and parameter instructions are front-loaded. It is concise, though it repeats the tool name and could pack more information into the same space.

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 four open-schema parameters and a large sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to define what computer details are, what query filters are valid, how pagination works, whether body is ever used, and what the return value looks like. Even the existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the lack of basic usage context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does provide high-level hints: route IDs go in path_params, filters and pagination in query, headers in headers. However, it does not explain what route IDs, filters, or pagination fields look like, and it entirely ignores the 'body' parameter. This minimal mapping adds some value over the empty schema but is far from sufficient.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'computer details', so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does not explain what 'computer details' entails or differentiate this from the many other get_* report query tools. The phrase 'get computer details' largely echoes the tool name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the hundreds of siblings. It only instructs which parameters to populate, not when this tool is the right choice. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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