glpi_list_computers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose pagination behavior, return format, or performance implications beyond the schema's note about include_specs. The description omits the include_specs option entirely, leaving the agent unaware of its existence and potential latency.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose and key features without any filler. It is fully front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, so the description should adequately set expectations. It covers pagination and filter but completely omits the include_specs parameter, which is a significant feature. It also lacks any note about the return shape or usage context, making the description incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description mentions start, limit, and filter but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the filter example is also present in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 states the tool 'searches and lists computers (Assets)', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like glpi_search_tickets by explicitly naming the resource (computers), but does not explicitly contrast with glpi_get_computer or other asset-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as glpi_get_computer for individual assets or glpi_get_asset_stats for aggregated metrics. It only mentions capabilities (paginação and filtros) without context on when these are relevant or preferred.

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