trmm_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a required scope (`integrations:trmm:read`) and mentions the Arbiter constitutional policy and ProofLink receipt generation, which informs the agent about permission needs and side effects. It doesn't describe failure modes or pagination, but for a simple read-only list, this is adequate.

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 two tightly-focused sentences: the first states the purpose, the second covers access and behavioral constraints. No wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, this description is fully sufficient. It names the resource, the returned fields, the required permission, and the receipt side-effect, providing everything an agent needs to decide to call it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema. The description adds value by specifying the fields included in the response (status, OS, site, last-seen), which helps an agent understand what the listing contains.

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 opens with a specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource 'Tactical RMM managed agents' along with the data fields returned (status, OS, site, last-seen). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like trmm_health or trmm_summary, which suggest aggregate/status operations rather than a per-agent listing.

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 states the action and the data returned, which implies when to use it (when you need a listing of all agents). However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclude cases, such as when to use trmm_summary for overall statistics or trmm_run_script for actions.

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