get_machines

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

Description indicates 'list all' which implies read-only behavior with no side effects. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state safety, auth needs, or cost. Adequate for a simple listing but could be more explicit.

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?

Extremely concise, single sentence front-loaded with key information. No unnecessary words. Efficient.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, description is adequate but could be more precise about whether it returns machine names, categories, or both. With many sibling tools, clarifying the exact output nature would be beneficial.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. Description adds meaning by stating what is returned (machine/category names with examples), which is helpful beyond the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists all machine/category names, with examples like Crops, Bakery, Dairy. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_animals or get_crops.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no alternative tools are mentioned. For a simple list tool, this may suffice, but lacks differentiation from other list tools.

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