Find Computers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned row shape (name, id, last report time) and a non-obvious failure mode (double quotes are illegal in BigFix relevance literals), which is real added value, but says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the search is case-insensitive at the server level.

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?

Two short sentences, the core behavior front-loaded, then the return shape and the constraint. No filler and nothing buried.

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 and the schema documents limit/offset including truncation behavior, so the description need not explain paging. For a simple 3-parameter read tool it is essentially complete, with only the lack of alternative-tool routing as a gap.

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, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the double-quote restriction on name_contains and by stating the column set returned for each match. It does not expand on limit/offset, but those are already fully documented.

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 plus the matching rule: "Find computers whose name contains a substring." That clearly separates it from the singular get_computer/get_computer_group siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_computer (exact lookup) or find_content. The only usage-adjacent statement is a hard constraint on the search term, which is a limitation rather than guidance about choosing this tool.

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