machine

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only lists data facets. It does not say whether this is a read-only lookup, whether an unknown id errors or returns empty, or how 'format' affects output.

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?

It is a single short line with no wasted words, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than being tight and complete. Front-loading the resource name is fine.

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 lookup tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description should explain the id semantics and return shape. It does none of these, leaving the definition insufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 two parameters: the required 'id' and 'format' (default 'text'). The description never mentions these parameters, so it neither explains what 'id' identifies nor what values 'format' accepts — a real gap the agent must guess at.

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 names the resource ('机器定义' / machine definition) and enumerates the facets it covers — recipe type, chamber capability (PartAbility), tooltip. However, it never states the verb (retrieve/lookup?) nor distinguishes itself from the close siblings 'machines_for' and 'producers', so an agent cannot confidently tell which to pick.

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 mention of alternatives such as 'machines_for', and no prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name and the vague topic list.

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