List Machines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent and the description agrees with no contradiction. Beyond annotations it adds extensive behavioral context: the AICOMMANDER_TOKEN auth requirement, the Free-tier 10-oldest usability limit with promotion-on-delete behavior, the 100-record ceiling, the deliberate masking of restricted entries (online:false, lastSeenAt:null, omitted platform/agent/GPU) with the explicit caveat that this is not evidence the machine is offline, and the 'win32' means cmd.exe shell-dialect mapping.

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 long, but every sentence carries distinct information — auth, tier limits, field semantics, caveats — with no filler or repetition. The core purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded in the first two sentences; the density is justified by the semantic complexity of the access-state and plan-restriction rules.

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 no-argument, no-output-schema tool whose complexity lives entirely in the meaning of returned data, the description covers the entry fields (blocked, planRestricted, online, lastSeenAt, platform, agent version, GPU), their semantics, tier-specific behavior, and the failure mode (reason:'plan_device_limit'). Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result safely is missing.

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 zero parameters, which earns the baseline of 4. The description confirms this with 'Takes no arguments,' so there is nothing ambiguous for the agent to resolve.

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?

Opens with a specific verb + resource + scope: 'List ALL of the user's saved machines with each one's access state and, when available, live status.' This clearly separates it from per-machine siblings like remote_exec and remote_screenshot, and the description explicitly contrasts it with session_status.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('USE THIS for fleet-wide questions or when the user has not named a machine yet') and a named fallback ('fall back to session_status with a specific AIC- code' when there is no account). Also provides a hard exclusion: 'NEVER attempt another tool against a plan-restricted entry.'

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