winops_auto_wmi_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safe read-only nature. The description adds the return format ('{"success": bool, "wmi_class": str, "result": str}') and examples, which clarifies the response shape. It does not disclose any further behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permission requirements), but the annotation coverage lowers the bar. No contradiction with annotations.

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 succinct yet complete: a one-sentence purpose, a clearly formatted return format block, and two illustrative examples. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Every element earns its place.

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, optional-parameter tool with good annotations and an output format specified, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, shows how to call it with examples, and defines the return JSON. Minor gaps include lack of mention of WMI namespace default (covered in schema) and no note about potential output size, but these are non-critical. Overall, the agent can confidently select and invoke this tool.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('WMI class to query' and 'WMI namespace'). The description's examples add concrete values (e.g., 'Win32_Processor') and show the call syntax, which enriches semantics slightly. However, it doesn't go beyond what the schema and defaults already imply, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Query a WMI class and return the raw output.' The verb is specific, the resource is a WMI class, and the output type is described. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific Windows resources (processes, services, accounts) or command execution (winops_cmd_powershell).

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 implies usage: when you need to query a WMI class and get raw output. It provides examples with Win32_Processor and Win32_BIOS, demonstrating typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like winops_cmd_powershell, nor does it list exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer context, but the purpose is clear enough.

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