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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what a read returns, whether it fails for stopped machines, or any auth or rate-limit considerations.

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?

At four words there is no wasted phrasing, but the brevity is under-specification rather than concision. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing meaningful is stated.

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 tool with a required identifier that must reference a specific machine, the description gives an agent no basis to call it correctly or interpret the result. There is no output schema, so the description needed to carry that burden and does not.

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% for the single required parameter 'id', and the description does not clarify whether it expects a machine name, numeric ID, or UUID. The word 'computer' hints that the id refers to a machine, but that is the only meaning conveyed.

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?

"Read a computer" restates the tool name machine_get with almost no added specificity. It does not say what is being read (metadata, runtime state, console output) or how it differs from siblings such as machine_health or machines, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish the correct call from the text alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like machine_health for status or machines for listing. The agent must infer everything from the name and schema.

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