List prohibited software

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds content details (installation counts, installer format, uninstall support) but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or potential performance implications, which are not covered by 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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the purpose and key data fields. No redundant phrasing or filler 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 list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It mentions the core data returned and implicitly supports filtering via the format and uninstall fields. Missing details like pagination limitations are already in the schema, and no output schema exists, so the description need not explain return structure.

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 provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, including enums for installer format and uninstall support. The description mentions these fields but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The pagination parameters are not described in the description, but the schema already handles them, so baseline 3 applies.

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 prohibited software across the network with specific fields like installation counts, installer format, and uninstall support. It identifies the resource precisely and implies a focus on the software list itself, distinguishing from sibling 'inventory_computers_by_prohibited_software' which targets computers, though the distinction is not explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of typical use cases, exclusions, or which sibling tools to prefer for related queries. The existence of filter parameters is implied but not communicated as usage guidance.

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