list_lolrmm

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It clearly communicates that this is a non-mutating enumeration operation returning known RMM tools with their executable names and vendors. It does not mention data freshness or output formatting, but for a simple catalog-list tool this is acceptable and not misleading.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and output, and the second provides practical usage context. The key differentiating phrase 'List all known' is placed right at the start.

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?

For a zero-parameter enumeration tool with no output schema, the description gives everything an agent needs: what the list contains, what fields are returned, and why an agent would use it. No critical information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The schema already conveys that no input is required, and the description adds the expected output fields, which is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List all known') with a clear resource (RMM tools) and explicit output fields (executable names and vendors). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_lolrmm, which would be used for querying a single known RMM entry rather than enumerating the full set.

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 explicitly states the intended use: building RMM allow/deny lists and T1219 detection rules. This gives clear context for when to select this tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the use cases are specific enough to guide an agent.

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