List computers with scan status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the returned dataset (scan status values, agent install status, live status, last successful scan time), but does not disclose potential volume or pagination behavior beyond what schema implies.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and includes useful parenthetical status values. No wasted words; title is appropriately specific.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description names the key output fields, while schema covers parameter semantics. It lacks an explicit statement about filtering/pagination behavior and raw projection, but these are available in parameter descriptions.

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%; every parameter already has a clear description and enum details. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Retrieves' and identifies resource 'inventory computers' plus returned fields (scan status, agent install status, live status, last successful scan time). It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like inventory_computer_details_summary or som_computers_list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description simply states what it does. Given many sibling inventory/list tools, explicit when-to-use or exclusion notes would help.

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