report_os_distribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output structure (object with 'total' and 'distribution' sorted descending) and the parameter details. No side effects or auth needs mentioned, but as a read-only report, this is adequate.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded, but mixing German and English (German purpose, English param/return docstring) may reduce clarity. Still efficient overall.

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 simple parameter with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers input, output, and purpose. No missing elements for a read-only aggregated report.

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 single parameter 'type' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully compensates by listing allowed values ('windows', 'mac', 'linux') and the default ('windows'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 the tool creates an overview of OS versions for all managed devices and explicitly mentions its use for identifying outdated versions. This distinguishes it from sibling report tools like report_agent_health or report_update_compliance.

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The description provides a use case ('helpful to identify outdated OS versions') but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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