List computer systems

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

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent safe operations. The description adds useful behavioral details: return format, pagination wrapper, and the effect of include_details on payload depth, exceeding what annotations provide.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, parameter guidance, return contract, and an example. Each sentence provides distinct value with no redundancy.

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 straightforward list operation, the description is complete: it covers scope, parameter behavior, response shape, and example usage. The output schema and annotations bear the rest, making this sufficient for confident invocation.

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?

Schema descriptions already cover both parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying that include_details yields 'full resource payloads and health snapshots', enriching the schema's explanation. The endpoint parameter is clarified via the example.

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 lists ComputerSystem members from /Systems, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_system (single resource) and other list_* tools by targeting a specific collection.

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 includes an example invocation and explains when to use include_details, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_system. The context is clear enough for selecting this tool for enumeration, though exclusions are not stated.

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