list_all_owned_computers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('List') without any information about permissions required, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the output takes, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 extremely concise at just three words, which is appropriately brief for a simple-sounding list operation. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and operates in a complex security/domain context with many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It provides minimal information about what the tool does and nothing about how to use it effectively, what it returns, or how it differs from related tools in the server.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no documentation for the 'domain' parameter. The description adds no information about parameters whatsoever - it doesn't mention the required 'domain' parameter, explain what it represents, or provide any context about its format or usage. This leaves the parameter completely undocumented.

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 'List all owned computer(s)' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'list_all_owned_computers'. While it includes a verb ('List') and resource ('owned computer(s)'), it lacks specificity about what 'owned' means in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_domain_computers' or 'computers_with_most_sessions'. The description doesn't clarify scope or criteria beyond the name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With numerous sibling tools related to computers, users, groups, and sessions, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or appropriate for specific scenarios. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other tools are mentioned.

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