cisco_umbrella_list_roaming_computers

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

The description discloses the HTTP method (GET), pagination via page and limit, and filter semantics. However, in the absence of annotations, it does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication needs, or behavior like how filters combine. Some behavioral traits are covered, but not all.

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-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then API endpoint, then a clear list of arguments. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff. The layout is scannable and efficient.

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 description covers the main purpose, endpoint, all parameters, and pagination. Since an output schema exists, the absence of response format details is acceptable. It could go further by specifying allowed filter values and date/time formats, but overall it is complete enough for a list 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?

Given schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining each of the 7 parameters with meaningful details: defaults, max limit, partial matches for name, and the semantics of last_sync_before/after. It lacks allowed values for status and date formats, but provides substantial value beyond the bare 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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'roaming computers', and clarifies in parentheses that these are endpoints running the Umbrella roaming client. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like activity or application list 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 makes the tool's purpose clear but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions. Sibling tools are quite different, so usage is implied, but no direct guidance or alternative routing is provided.

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