Find expensive automations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and explains the tool's logic, including why extension attributes are highlighted (they execute at every inventory collection). It does not mention rate limits or output format, but the core safety and operational traits are disclosed.

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 efficient and well-structured. It opens with the main audit action, provides concrete examples of problematic commands, highlights a key distinction (EAs), and ends with a memorable, useful use-case phrase. No wasted 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description appropriately explains what the tool reports (which policies run the expensive commands and how often). It covers the core scope and the EA caveat. Minor gaps include not specifying the exact output format or behavior when no results are found, but overall it's sufficient for this complexity.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning beyond naming the resource kinds, but it doesn't need to since the schema is sufficient.

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's function with a specific verb ('Audit'), the target resources (Jamf scripts, extension attributes, policies), the specific behavior (identifying CPU/battery-heavy commands), and the output (report which policies run them and how often). It distinguishes itself from sibling find/list tools by focusing on an audit of expensive automations.

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 provides a clear use case ('Answers "what is cooking this laptop's battery"') and context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It's clear this is a specialized audit tool rather than a general lookup, which is sufficient for usage guidance.

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