list_systems_needing_reboot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format ('items' with specific fields) and pagination constraints (limit capped at 500). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but for a list tool this is adequate.

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 very concise: three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds necessary details without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list with pagination) and the presence of an output schema (context signal), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, pagination behavior, and cap. It is adequate for an agent to use 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?

The schema has no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description adds that `limit` is capped at 500, which goes beyond the schema. It also explains that `limit` and `offset` are inputs for pagination, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 systems requiring reboot. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('systems that require reboot'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_systems' (all systems) and 'check_all_systems_for_updates'.

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 see systems needing reboot) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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