Computer inventory summary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Retrieves' aligns with that. Beyond annotations, it adds valuable context by listing exactly what data categories are returned, helping the agent set expectations for the response. No contradiction or hidden side effects.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then lists the included content. No filler or redundant phrasing; every element contributes to understanding what the tool returns.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it specifies the input source and the output categories. It does not explain return format, but the enumeration compensates. Minor gaps around 'asset counts' detail, but overall sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage, including a description of resId as the resource_id from specific lists. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 states the verb 'Retrieves' and a specific resource: 'detailed inventory summary for one computer.' It enumerates the content categories (asset counts, OS details, disk usage, hardware summary, network adapters), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like inventory_all_summary that would cover all 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 implies usage when you need a per-computer summary, and the parameter description tells where to get resId from (som_computers_list or inventory_scan_computers_list). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or name alternatives, so an agent might not know when to prefer this over similar inventory tools.

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