get_computer

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

The description does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint). It states 'full detail' but no specifics about permissions or limitations. Since annotations cover the read-only and open-world aspects, no contradiction; the description simply lacks additional transparency.

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 a single, well-front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It could mention the relationship to list_computers or the nature of 'full detail', but for a basic getter, it suffices.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter (computer_id). The description merely says 'by id' without adding type, format, or source suggestions (e.g., from list_computers). For a tool with no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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 clearly states it returns full detail for a single computer by id. It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('computer'), and qualifier ('by id'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_computers' which might return similar but summarized data.

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 implies usage when you need detail for a specific computer, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as using 'list_computers' first to obtain an ID.

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