List Windows computer device status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it explains the curated default omits legacy port classes and the impact of 'raw: true'. This goes beyond the annotation safety profile without contradicting it.

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, both informative: the first gives the core purpose and output shape, the second clarifies the curated vs raw behavior. No wasted words, and the front-loaded main clause makes it easy to scan.

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?

This list tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so partially (per-computer, one record, status ID per device class, example classes), which suffices for basic use but doesn't enumerate all possible fields or response paging details. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate.

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 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds specific meaning to the 'raw' parameter by explaining the curated default versus raw mode, which is valuable beyond the schema's generic 'full, unprojected records' description.

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 states a specific verb ('retrieves'), resource ('device control status'), and scope ('for all Windows computers'), and further details the output shape (one record per computer with a status ID for each device class). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dcm_mac_computer_device_status_list, which targets Mac computers.

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 gives clear context: this is for Windows computers, and the 'raw: true' option is explicitly noted for retrieving every device class. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the sibling list implies the Mac counterpart for Mac devices.

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