Client Query Submit

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does add one valuable non-obvious fact — that targeting is bounded by the operator's scope, so target_all is not global. It omits the submission lifecycle entirely (whether this is asynchronous, whether results must be fetched via client_query_results, request limits), which is significant for a 'submit' tool with no annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then targeting rules, then the scope caveat — a sensible ordering with no filler. Slightly dense and repetitive ('Targeting:' followed by two sentences that both restate the same framing).

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 values need not be described, and the targeting model is well covered. What is missing is the operational context: how results are retrieved (the client_query_results sibling is never referenced), and whether the call is synchronous or queued, which is material for a submit-style tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: mutual exclusivity among the four targeting parameters, and the semantics of target_relevance as 'client relevance evaluated on each agent to decide applicability.' It does not clarify the target_all default-vs-mutual-exclusion interplay with the schema defaults.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a BigFix client (fast) query,' which tells an agent exactly what happens. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling tools client_query, client_query_results, or qna_eval_client_relevance, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these closely-named operations to pick.

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?

It gives a concrete structural rule ('set exactly one of target_all, target_computer_ids, target_computer_names, or target_relevance'), which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not say when to prefer this tool over client_query/session_relevance_query/xml or what the caller should do after submitting, so usage context is only implied.

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