Computers with a prohibited software

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the result includes install location and exception-request counts, which is useful for understanding what the tool returns. It does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination defaults, but that is not required given the schema and 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only relevant details (source list and returned fields). No redundant wording.

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 list tool with a well-covered schema and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool: it names the source list for the key parameter and summarizes the return data. It does not enumerate all output fields, but given the tool complexity and sibling differentiation, 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an important cross-reference that prohibitedSwId comes from inventory_prohibited_software_list, which helps the agent populate the required parameter correctly. This cross-reference goes beyond what the schema provides, warranting a 4.

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 uses the specific verb 'retrieves' with resource 'computers' and defines the scope as 'a specific prohibited software' identified by software_id from a named source list. It also lists the returned data (install location, exception-request counts), differentiating it from sibling tools like inventory_computers_by_software.

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 indicates the tool is for prohibited-software detections and references inventory_prohibited_software_list as the source for software_id, giving clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the naming and the specific return fields strongly imply its purpose relative to sibling inventory_computers_by_* tools.

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