machine_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful nuance by noting the tool returns a compact summary by default and that deeper detail should be opt-in, implying cost or noise concerns. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 sentence delivers the purpose first, then usage guidance, with no filler or repetition of the tool name. 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters, no required inputs, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit detail about the default output structure, but the phrase 'compact machine/runtime health summary' gives an agent enough context to call it appropriately.

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 coverage is 100%, so both include and detailed are already documented in the schema. The description adds the 'deeper diagnostics' framing for detailed=true but does not explain the meaning of the enum values in include, which the schema already handles. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('compact machine/runtime health summary'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like runtime_info or system_info, but the 'health summary' framing provides enough distinct identity.

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 gives clear guidance on when to request optional sections or detailed=true ('only when deeper diagnostics are needed'), implying that the default compact call is preferred. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over siblings such as runtime_info, process_status, or system_info.

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