Inventory collection settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains that the tool rates options by cost, specifically flags home_directory_sizes as high cost, and details why (running du across all user home directories, leading to battery drain). This is rich behavioral context beyond just 'read settings'.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, cost explanation, and pairing recommendation. The description is front-loaded with the core action and then adds valuable context without fluff.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, why it matters (cost analysis and battery impact), and how to use it alongside another tool. Nothing important is missing.

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 the schema fully covers the input. The baseline is 4 for no-parameter tools, and the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It doesn't, but that's acceptable.

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 action ('Read the tenant computer inventory collection settings') and the unique output ('rate each option by how much work it adds per collection'). It also distinguishes itself by naming a complementary sibling tool (findExpensiveAutomations), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit usage guidance by recommending pairing with findExpensiveAutomations to see how often inventory is triggered. It also gives a concrete example of when this tool is useful (diagnosing a du process under JamfDaemon), helping the agent decide when to invoke it.

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