list_systems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description specifies returned data. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or any potential limitations, which would be more transparent.

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 sentence, immediately front-loading the action and resource, with a list of return fields. Every word contributes value with no redundancy.

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 list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully captures the purpose, scope, and return data. It lacks only explicit read-only confirmation and any note on potential output size, but these are minor for this tool type.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides no information, so the description's mention of 'all' systems adds meaningful scope. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description reinforces that no filtering is applied.

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 all computer systems managed by the BMC, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('computer systems'). It also enumerates the exact return fields, making its purpose distinct from siblings like get_system.

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 description implies use for enumerating all systems, and the sibling get_system suggests a one-system alternative, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'all' hints at scope but does not directly contrast with get_system.

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