machines_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema — result ordering where multiblock machines come first — which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the list is exhaustive versus filtered.

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 compact sentence, front-loaded with the core outcome (which machines) followed by the qualifying scope. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical phrasing is slightly dense for non-Chinese-reading tooling.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must stand alone. It covers the return set and ordering adequately, but leaves gaps on usage versus sibling tools and on the `format` parameter, so it is only minimally sufficient for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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. It does clarify that `recipe_type_or_id` accepts either a recipe type or a recipe belonging to a type, which resolves the ambiguity of the required parameter, but the `format` parameter is left entirely undocumented.

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 a concrete result set — all machines able to run the given recipe type or the type of a given recipe — and adds a scoping rule (multiblock preferred). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like `producers` or `machine`, so an agent must guess which one 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 statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative such as `producers` or `machine`. The agent gets no guidance on when this lookup is the right one versus its near-siblings.

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