Get Computer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the read endpoint and that the response contains the reported properties BigFix holds, implying a safe read, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the ID is unknown, or whether the record can be stale — gaps that matter for a lookup tool.

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 short sentences: the action, what the payload contains, and the fallback guidance. Front-loaded with the core operation and free of filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return fields, and it correctly focuses on identifying the record and the fallback path. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior (invalid/unknown ID, permission requirements).

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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents computer_id as the BigFix computer ID. The description reinforces this via the /api/computer/{id} path but adds no new format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one computer's full record') and pins the exact endpoint /api/computer/{id}, so the agent knows precisely what the tool returns. It also implicitly separates itself from find_computers by framing this as a single-record fetch keyed by ID.

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 an explicit routing rule: 'Use find_computers first if you only know part of the name,' naming the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g., bulk retrieval), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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