machine_call

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable context by stating this is the 'high-authority routing path' while noting the remote machine still enforces its own policy, workspace boundary, approvals, and audit log. This helps an agent understand the authority and safety envelope beyond the annotation flags alone.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the first states the action and target, and the second adds essential authority and safety context. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 generic remote tool-call router, the description gives enough for a basic invocation but leaves gaps: no guidance on argument shape, timeout semantics, or the returned payload. The lack of an output schema raises the burden on the description, which is only partially met.

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, but it only implicitly maps 'one MCP tool' to the 'tool' parameter and 'registered remote machine' to 'machine.' It does not explain 'arguments,' how to construct the nested object, or the meaning and default behavior of 'timeout_ms.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Run one MCP tool on a registered remote machine.' It clearly communicates what the tool does, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools such as machine_read, machine_tools, or runtime_exec, so it does not fully earn 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 intended use is implied by the phrasing 'Run one MCP tool on a registered remote machine,' so an agent can infer when to select this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, such as machine_read for reads or shell_command for local commands.

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