Summarize Computer Os

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details: return format with {operatingSystem, count}, sorting by descending count, handling of missing OS as '(unknown)', and the optional 'base' parameter for scoping. It could still mention limit behavior or authentication requirements, but the added context is substantial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by return and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given a read-only tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return structure and the key scoping parameter. The omission of 'limit' and 'domain' semantics is a gap, but with defaults and an output schema present, the definition is largely complete for calling the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and three parameters, the description must compensate. It explains only 'base' (a DN for OU scoping), leaving 'limit' and 'domain' completely undocumented in both schema and description. This partial coverage is insufficient for confident invocation of those parameters.

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 ('Summarize') and resource ('computer accounts grouped by operating system'), clearly indicating an aggregation rather than a listing. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool for differentiation, but the grouping concept distinguishes it from simple find/get tools.

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 parenthetical '(audit/report)' hints at a use case, and the instruction to pass 'base' to scope to an OU provides some contextual guidance. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_computers or find_stale_computers, nor does it mention exclusions.

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