list_computers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose pagination behavior (though max_results parameter exists), rate limits, or potential performance impacts. The mention of returned fields (OS, last logon, OU) adds some value.

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?

A single sentence of 14 words that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output fields. No redundant or extraneous information, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output format, pagination handling, error cases, or how results are ordered. An agent would need additional context to reliably invoke this tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the format of filters or the effect of max_results. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it lists computer accounts in Active Directory with specific attributes (OS, last logon, OU). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_devices or search_computers, which have similar listing purposes.

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 usage guidance provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, such as search_computers for more advanced filtering or get_computer for a single computer, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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