List TacticalRMM Agent Software

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

The description states 'This tool is read-only,' which is redundant given the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. It adds the endpoint path but no further behavioral context such as authentication, rate limits, or return values. With strong annotation coverage, the description adds minimal extra value beyond what annotations already provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler or redundant details, and every word serves a purpose. Very concise and well-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?

For a simple list tool with only two parameters, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and how it is scoped. It is complete for its intended use, similar to the calibration example of get_calls.

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%, meaning both parameters are fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and description doesn't need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('software inventory for a TacticalRMM agent'), and includes the endpoint path /software/<agent_id>/ which adds clarity. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_agent_services' or 'list_win_updates' by focusing on software inventory.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing software inventory of a specific agent, which implies the appropriate context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose it appropriately among many list tools.

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