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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a partial sketch of returned fields and says nothing about visibility, pagination, or what 'q' filters, so it contributes little beyond the 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?

It is short with no filler, but it is an unfinished fragment ending in an ellipsis, so the front-loaded content is cut off before conveying the full scope of per-machine state.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it only partially does before truncating. For a read tool with an undocumented filter parameter and several overlapping siblings, an agent lacks enough to call it confidently.

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 0% and the single parameter 'q' is undocumented in both schema and description. The conventional meaning of 'q' as a query string is the only signal an agent gets; the description does not say what it searches over (cell name, description, state).

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 identifies the resource (cells run by the user's own machines) and the attributes returned (name, function, state), which is more specific than the bare name. However, it is truncated mid-sentence ('...on each of your...') and never states an explicit verb, leaving the operation (list vs. inspect) inferred.

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?

'Your own machines' hints at a scoping distinction, but no sibling is named despite close alternatives like cells_find, cell_owner, my_devices, or host_list in the sibling list. There is no statement of when to use this versus searching or inspecting a specific cell.

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