cim_query

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the read-only nature and Windows-only requirement, which is real value. However it says nothing about required privileges, remote-target behavior, whether the default limit of 50 truncates results, or what happens on a namespace miss.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and constrained by platform before the parameter detail. Slight waste in the 'e.g.' class enumeration, but it earns its place as discovery aid for an agent that doesn't know WMI class names.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needn't be described, and the read-only/Windows facts are covered. Still, for a 5-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any guidance on namespace selection, property projection, or limit truncation leaves an agent guessing on most of the surface.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only half does: it clarifies `filter` as a WQL WHERE clause with a concrete example and implies `class_name` via the example class list. The `namespace`, `properties`, and `limit` parameters receive no explanation at all, despite `limit` having a truncation-relevant default of 50.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Query CIM/WMI classes via Get-CimInstance') plus the platform constraint, and the enumerated example classes make the scope concrete. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like system_info, list_processes or list_services.

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 'Windows only' qualifier and the example classes imply when this tool applies, but there is no explicit 'use X instead' routing to overlapping siblings such as system_info, list_processes or list_services. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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