Ejecutar Machine

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: max_rounds re-expands over newly discovered entities and the budget parameters (soft_limit, max_total_entities, max_inputs_per_step) bound cost, which is the key operational trait of a recursive, open-world 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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and the available machines, followed by the recursion and budget notes. The machine-name enumeration is long but earns its place by removing a discovery round-trip; the rest is efficient.

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?

With 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision surface: machine vs. custom transform chain, recursion depth, and budget controls. It does not explain mutual exclusivity of 'machine' and 'transforms' explicitly or describe the response shape, but the schema fills those gaps adequately.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema itself. The description adds only marginal semantics, clarifying that max_rounds repeats expansion 'sobre lo nuevo' and that transforms are applied in order, which slightly enriches the schema's terse 'Rondas de expansión recursiva'. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Ejecuta') and resource ('Machine' or custom chain) and enumerates the concrete machine names available (DomainRecon, InfrastructureRecon, ThreatSweep, etc.), so the agent knows exactly what is being run. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like osint_run_transform or osint_expand_entity, which keeps it below a 5.

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 ('una cadena propia (transforms en orden)' when you don't want a predefined machine) and explains that max_rounds repeats expansion while budgets cap cost, giving some operational context. However, it never states when to pick this over osint_run_transform, osint_expand_entity, or osint_investigate, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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