List computer targets

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that results are runtime-dependent ('currently serve'), that availability is reported, and that capability notes are 'honest' (i.e., caveats may be included). It does not mention permissions or auth requirements, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single sentence with the scope front-loaded and no filler. Every clause (what is listed, which platforms, availability, capability notes) carries information an agent needs.

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 discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes what comes back (targets with availability and capability notes). A brief note on output shape or that it is safe/read-only would make it fully complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly adds no parameter discussion, which is appropriate here.

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?

States a specific verb (enumerate) and resource (every device/platform the server can serve) and enumerates the categories (local desktops, android, ios simulators, browser). This clearly separates it from the singular sibling computer_get_target, which retrieves one target's details.

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 phrase 'can currently serve' plus 'availability' implies this is the discovery entry point to call before acting on a specific target, but the description never states when to prefer it over computer_get_target or computer_get_state, nor any prerequisite ordering.

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