psloggedon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the operation itself. It does not mention that PsLoggedon typically requires administrative privileges, that the network mode probes remote hosts (with latency/security implications), or any side effects. The return-format block is largely redundant because an output schema already exists.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, and the return-format section is cleanly separated. The return-format block is somewhat wasteful given a dedicated output schema, but the overall structure is tight and readable.

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 two-boolean read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits the admin-privilege prerequisite and the local-vs-psloggedon_server distinction, both of which an agent needs to select and run this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both booleans, their defaults, and the '-x' flag mapping for network. The description adds no syntax or behavior detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List users logged on') with scope ('locally and optionally via network connections'), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling psloggedon_server, which is a likely source of confusion for a remote-vs-local question.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the closest alternative, psloggedon_server, is never named. The only usage signal is implicit in the parameter defaults (local=true, network=false), which is inference rather than guidance.

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