Get agents by machine name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the vendor context '(Atera lookup)' — it discloses nothing about result shape, pagination behavior, or the empty-result case.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably over-terse — a verb and the return shape could be added without bloat — but nothing is wasted.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and a default summary output, the description should at least hint at what comes back and whether matching is case-sensitive. Annotations and schema cover the safety and paging dimensions, so the gap is real but moderate.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself, including the summary/full and paging options. The description's one contribution is exact-match semantics for machineName, which the schema (plain string, minLength 1) does not state, but it says nothing about full, page, or itemsInPage.

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 names the resource (agents) and the specific filter (machine name matched exactly), and the 'exactly' qualifier usefully distinguishes it from fuzzy siblings like find_agents. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns') and doesn't name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are offered, despite four plausible siblings (list_agents, find_agents, get_agent). Usage is only implied by the exact-match phrase.

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