teramind_list_computers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the key boundary: 'Inventory metadata only - never screen recordings or captured activity content.' It also identifies the monitoring status and agent-software state fields, giving a solid sense of what the tool does and does not expose.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: scope and fields, downstream relationship, and data-boundary caveat. The main action is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It names the response fields, clarifies the monitoring/agent-state semantics, links to the dependent get_computer tool, and states the critical exclusion of recording content. An agent can select and invoke it correctly without additional context.

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?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter syntax, but none is needed, and it enriches the agent's understanding by enumerating the response fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List computers under Teramind monitoring') and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's purpose immediate. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like teramind_list_agents and teramind_get_computer, and it even names the downstream consumer of the returned IDs.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to obtain computer inventory metadata and the IDs required by teramind_get_computer. It also adds an exclusion by warning that screen recordings or captured activity content are never returned, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or a full when-not-to-use set.

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