List blocked device audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the returned fields and filters, but does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination limits, rate limits, or response structure. This is consistent with the annotations.

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?

Two sentences: the first describes the tool's purpose and output fields, the second lists filters. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

With 10 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the return fields and filter capabilities. It does not explicitly mention pagination or the 'raw' option, but those are documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only list 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the filter names (time period, computer, group, device type, OS platform, domain) but adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it retrieves all devices blocked across the network (Device Control Management), listing the exact fields returned (device type, vendor/product, serial number, user, computer, insert/remove times). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dcm_device_audit_list, which likely lists all device audits rather than blocked ones.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when blocked device audit data is needed) and enumerates the supported filters. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, which would elevate it to a 5.

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