Machine Info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by mentioning 'cached (or refreshed)', indicating a default caching behavior and a refresh option. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what 'extended info' contains, potential side effects of refresh, or error behavior. The description leaves safety and side-effect expectations ambiguous.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action ('Get cached (or refreshed) extended info'), and contains no redundant elements. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters. The description gives a high-level purpose but fails to specify what 'extended info' includes, what the return format is, or how errors are handled. An agent cannot predict what data it will receive or how to interpret the result, which is a significant gap for a tool with no structured output information.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It partially does: 'machine' is implied by 'Machine Info' and 'via SSH', and 'refresh' maps to 'cached (or refreshed)'. However, it does not clarify the format of the machine parameter (hostname, IP, ID) or the exact semantics of refresh (e.g., bypass cache vs. force new SSH connection). The schema provides types, but the description adds only minimal extra meaning.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get cached (or refreshed) extended info for a machine via SSH.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools (exec, upload, download, etc.) by focusing on information retrieval rather than command execution or file transfer. The 'cached (or refreshed)' qualifier adds useful nuance beyond a generic 'get info'.

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: when you need extended machine info, use this tool rather than running commands via exec-async or other execution tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor when to choose cached vs refreshed results. There is no exclusion or alternative naming, so usage guidance is only implied.

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