Computers with a specific 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 context about the output (install date, version, computer details) and the link to inventory_software_list, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, filtering defaults, or other non-obvious runtime characteristics. This is adequate but not rich.

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 that is front-loaded with the action, contains no filler, and conveys purpose, key requirements, and output highlights in under 25 words.

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 inventory query with 9 parameters, the description gives the core purpose and key output fields, and the schema fills in filter parameter details. There is no output schema, but the description's mention of 'install date, version, and computer details' gives a reasonable expectation of the result set. It could be more explicit about pagination and the full list of computer details, but this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool 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 provides descriptions for all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description also reinforces the meaning of swId by referencing its source (inventory_software_list), but adds no deeper semantic detail beyond the schema.

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' and clearly identifies the resource: computers with a specific software installed. It also references the source of the required parameter (software_id from inventory_software_list) and specifies output fields, distinguishing it from sibling inventory tools focused on hardware, licenses, or metering.

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 computers running a particular software, and it points to a prerequisite source for the ID. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions; given the many sibling tools like inventory_computers_by_licensed_software and inventory_computers_by_prohibited_software, it fails to guide selection among overlapping tools.

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