machine_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond by explaining the gateway verification and fail-closed behavior, and by disclosing that mutating or unannotated remote tools are rejected. This adds meaningful operational context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by a crisp routing rule for the alternative. Every word 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?

The description fully addresses the when-to-use decision and the security guardrail, but it leaves parameter semantics and invocation details entirely to inference. Given no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, this is adequate for selecting the tool but not fully complete for constructing a correct call without additional context.

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%, and the description does not explain machine, tool, arguments, or timeout_ms. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, no parameter-level meaning is provided to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action (run a remote MCP tool) with a clear prerequisite. It also distinguishes itself from machine_call by defining which tools are handled here versus there, so the agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: use this tool only when the remote tool declares readOnlyHint=true, otherwise use machine_call. This directly names the alternative and the condition for choosing it.

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