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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds value by enumerating returned fields, but it does not disclose potential nuances like pagination, filtering, or whether results include all statuses. It provides some context but is not deeply transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the action, resource, and returned data. Every word contributes to understanding, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only list tool with zero parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description is almost complete. It tells the agent what will be listed and what fields to expect. It could be slightly more explicit about whether all machines are returned or if there are any limits, but overall it is sufficient for this tool's simplicity.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics as none are needed. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 action (list) and the resource (persistent Linux machines), and specifies what information is returned (status, address, resource shape). It distinguishes from likely siblings like scalix_compute_list by emphasizing 'persistent Linux machines,' making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for listing persistent machines, but it does not explicitly contrast with related tools such as scalix_compute_list or indicate when not to use this tool. There is no alternative guidance, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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