List hardware inventory

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns all detected hardware and includes counts, but does not disclose pagination defaults or response shape beyond that. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some context but not a lot.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action and key output fields. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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?

The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description naming key fields (manufacturer, type, counts). The schema covers pagination and filtering. The pointer to inventory_filter_params fills a gap in filter value information, making the description sufficiently complete for a moderately complex 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds a pointer to inventory_filter_params for valid filter values, which is helpful but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 hardware components with manufacturer, hardware type, and counts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like inventory_all_summary (which likely summarizes) and inventory_computer_details_summary by focusing on hardware components across the network.

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 for listing hardware inventory but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only points to inventory_filter_params for valid filter values, which is a helper reference, not a usage guideline for tool selection.

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