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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real context beyond the name: persistence ('keeps whatever was installed on it') and quota semantics ('how many may exist and how many may run at once'). It does not say whether the call is read-only in effect, how results are ordered, or whether the listing can be large — gaps that matter for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the persistence/durability model an agent needs to reason about the returned machines.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should describe the return shape more concretely — 'status' values, quota fields, and ordering are all left vague. It is adequate for a simple list but not fully self-contained.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List every computer on this account') and adds what each entry includes (status, quotas). That distinguishes it from the other list_* siblings (list_checkpoints, list_directory, list_exposed_ports), though it never names them directly.

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 statement of when to use this versus get_environment_info or get_active_environment, which are the obvious overlapping siblings for inspecting machines. Usage is only implied by 'List every computer'.

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