list_computers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields (OS, last logon, security status), which tells the agent the call is a read with meaningful payload. It does not say what happens when 'ou' is omitted (whole domain scan?), whether results are paged or size-limited, or what permissions are required — all relevant for a potentially large directory read.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return contents and compact examples. The closing line 'Shows computer health and security posture' largely restates the earlier field list and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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 three-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields but omits default scope behavior, result volume expectations, and permission prerequisites. Adequate, but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description only illustrates 'ou' in an example and does not add semantics for 'attributes' or 'filter_criteria', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List computer objects in Active Directory') and enumerates what is returned: OS information, last logon, security status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_computer (single object) or get_stale_computers, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 two examples imply how to call it with and without an OU scope, which is a form of usage guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not and no mention of when get_computer or get_stale_computers would be the better choice, leaving the choice to inference.

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