computer_group_get_group_and_computer

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that the endpoint can return very large payloads (>100KB) and recommends scoping. This is critical behavioral information for an agent.

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?

Single sentence with a note. Front-loaded with purpose, then critical caveat. No superfluous text. Could break into two sentences for clarity but overall 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?

Given 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context about payload size and scoping but lacks details on return structure or parameter semantics beyond the general advice.

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 has only 13% description coverage. Description adds meaning by mentioning computerGroupId and include_* flags, but doesn't detail each flag. Compensates partially for low schema 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?

Description states 'Get Groups and Computer' which is specific enough, but could clarify whether it returns a group with its computers or multiple groups. The warning about large payloads hints at scope but the core resource is clear.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use (with scoping) and warns against unscoped calls due to large payloads. Does not mention alternative tools, but the guidance is actionable and context-aware.

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