umbrella_list_roaming_computers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context; 'List' signals a read-only operation, and 'enrolled via the Umbrella roaming client' defines the population. It does not mention response format, ordering, pagination semantics, or any API-specific quirks, but for a simple list this is a moderate rather than severe gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated schema information. It earns its place by identifying the resource and the enrollment scope immediately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, and the description is minimal. It is sufficient for basic invocation with the well-documented optional parameters, but it leaves return values and any list-specific behavior unstated; for a low-complexity list tool this is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, and additionalParams are already fully documented and the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a precise resource ('roaming computers enrolled via the Umbrella roaming client'), which clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools such as umbrella_list_networks and umbrella_list_internal_networks. It is more than a restatement of 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?

Intended usage is implied by the resource scope: an agent that needs enrolled roaming computers can select this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over sibling list_* tools or what conditions would make it inappropriate.

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