client_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool polls, waits until done or timeout, and constraints targeting to exactly one mode. It also clarifies that target_all means within the operator's scope. It does not explicitly state side-effect freedom (e.g., read-only), but the query nature makes that implicit.

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 compact: two sentences, first being the core action, second addressing targeting constraints. Every clause provides necessary information without fluff. The most important usage guidance 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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers returns), the description covers the essential behavioral context: synchronous polling, timeout, targeting options, and scope limits. It omits details about poll_interval and timeout ranges, but those are in the schema. It is sufficient for a tool of 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: target_relevance is explained as 'client relevance evaluated on each agent to decide applicability,' expected_count's default behavior is clarified ('Defaults to the targeted computer count when knowable'), and stable_polls' stopping condition is rephrased. This adds genuine value over the raw property descriptions.

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+resource+behavior: 'Submit a BigFix client (fast) query and wait for results, polling until done or timeout.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like client_query_submit and client_query_results, which handle submission and retrieval separately. The sync-and-poll nature is explicit.

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 gives a clear, actionable targeting rule: 'set exactly one of target_all, target_computer_ids, target_computer_names, or target_relevance.' It also explains the operator-scope limitation. It doesn't mention alternatives like client_query_submit/results for async use, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance, but the provided context is strong.

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