glpi_criar_computador

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creation and dry_run behavior, but fails to describe side effects, required permissions, error scenarios, or what happens on duplicate names. Transparency is minimal.

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 concise with two sentences and no extraneous content. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could be more structured by including parameter hints or usage context.

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 the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values beyond dry_run, lacks parameter details, and misses essential context for an agent to use it effectively.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond the tool's name. No parameter purposes, formats, or constraints are given. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for the schema gap.

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 clearly states the tool registers a computer in inventory ('Cadastra um computador no inventário') and mentions a dry_run mode. While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly (create vs update/delete/list), it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like 'glpi_atualizar_computador'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update or delete tools. There are no prerequisites, usage examples, or when-not-to-use instructions. The dry_run mention is useful but insufficient for contextual usage.

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