session_relevance_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the absence of a server-side result limit, warns to bound large result sets, specifies the return envelope shape, and reveals that results are scoped to the operator's visibility, potentially being a lower bound unless whoami shows is_main_operator. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured: it starts with a one-sentence purpose, then a paragraph explaining the query context, then critical caveats, and finally the operator-scope note. Each sentence contributes necessary information, with no fluff. The use of examples and the raw envelope format makes it efficient.

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 the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, the data source, return format, result limits, and scope/visibility nuances. Although an output schema exists, the description still explains the envelope structure and operator-bound implications, leaving little room for misinterpretation.

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?

The schema already describes the sole parameter as 'A BigFix session relevance expression to evaluate,' and coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete example expressions and guidance on bounding result sets (e.g., using 'firsts 100'), which helps the agent construct valid inputs and avoid performance issues.

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: 'Evaluate a BigFix session relevance query on the root server.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling client query tools by noting 'no client round-trip' and listing the data domains (computers, fixlets, actions, sites, operators). This makes the tool's 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 explains that session relevance queries the server's already-held data with no client round-trip, which effectively tells the agent when to use this tool versus client query tools. It also provides examples and a critical caveat about no server-side result limit, implying the need to bound queries. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'use client query for client-side data,' so there's no direct exclusion.

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