machine_tools

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

The annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds useful caching specifics: 60-second cache lifetime and replacement on fingerprint change. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded and caching behavior stated immediately after. 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 is adequate for a simple read-only cached listing tool, but gaps remain: no return format, no explanation of timeout_ms, and no indication of when to choose this over sibling capability-related tools. Given there is no output schema, slightly more context about the returned capability list would improve completeness.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does clarify that 'machine' refers to a registered remote machine and that 'refresh' relates to the 60-second cache, but 'timeout_ms' remains entirely unexplained in both the schema and description.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action: list and cache tool capabilities exposed by one registered remote machine. It specifies a concrete resource ('tool capabilities' of a 'registered remote machine'), though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling introspection tools like machine_probe or capability_diff.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as machine_probe, machine_read, or capability_diff. It implies the tool is for inspecting capabilities of a remote machine, but it does not state selection criteria, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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