cls_describe_machine_group_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what information is retrieved (configuration and online status) but lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context.

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?

The description is appropriately sized with two clear sections: a purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the main description. No wasted text.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 2 parameters with good semantic coverage in the description, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter meanings adequately, though more behavioral transparency would improve completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'group_id' is required and identifies the machine group, and 'region' is optional with examples (ap-guangzhou, na-ashburn), default behavior (uses default if not provided), and how to find available values (via cls_describe_regions). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('获取机器组详情和机器状态' - get machine group details and machine status) and resource ('机器组' - machine group). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cls_describe_machine_groups' (which likely lists groups) by focusing on details and status of a specific group.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to view configuration information and online status of machines within a group. It mentions an alternative tool ('cls_describe_regions') for querying available regions, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to all relevant siblings like 'cls_describe_machine_groups'.

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