List Mac 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's 'Retrieves' aligns with that. The description adds useful behavioral context about the response structure (one record per computer, status ID per device class), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No wasted words, and it efficiently conveys the essential purpose and output shape.

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 read-only nature, strong annotations, and fully described parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains the return granularity and device classes (with 'etc.' implying more). It lacks explicit pagination behavior, but that is covered by the schema parameters, so the description is adequate for this simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters (raw, page, pageLimit). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, so the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves per-computer device control status specifically for Mac computers, with one record per computer and status IDs per device class. It distinguishes from the sibling dcm_computer_device_status_list by explicitly limiting to 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 context is clear: use this tool when you need per-computer device control status for Mac computers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the 'for all Mac computers' phrasing implies its scope and differentiates it from similar siblings.

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