Ucontrol Read Umap Bmc Appliances

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the annotations already indicate (read-only, idempotent, open world). It does not mention pagination, filtering, output format, or any limitations, so the agent gains no extra context.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and minimal information needs.

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 description is too sparse to be fully self-contained. There is no output schema and no elaboration on what a 'BMC appliance' is, what fields the list returns, or how this tool relates to the numerous sibling tools. It leaves the agent guessing about the response structure and scope.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is high (100% trivially). Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 lists BMC appliances via the uMap API, using a specific verb ('list') and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from the many similar sibling tools that also read uMap data.

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 instead of alternatives like ucontrol_read_umap_models or ucontrol_read_umap_services. There is no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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