get_computer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the shape of the returned profile (OS details, last logon, group memberships, security settings), which is useful, but it says nothing about read-only nature, required permissions, or what happens when the computer is not found.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the example is compact. The closing line 'Returns complete computer profile' largely restates the second sentence and earns little.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers what is fetched. It omits lookup-failure behavior and permissions, which matter for an agent calling against a directory service with no annotations to fall back on.

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%, so both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The worked example reinforces that computer_name takes a sAMAccountName value, but the optional 'attributes' filter is never mentioned in the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific computer') and the phrase 'specific computer' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_computers. It stops short of naming the alternative outright, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'a specific computer' suggests a single-object lookup rather than a listing, and the example call shows the required identifier. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to list_computers as the alternative for enumeration.

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