defender_get_domain_machines

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. However, the description fails to disclose other behavioral aspects: the meaning of 'communicated' (e.g., does it include historical or only current connections?), whether the result is a list of machine objects or just IDs, and any potential pagination or performance implications. The description adds minimal context beyond the one-liner.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loads the core purpose. It efficiently adds the 'lateral scope' insight without waste. It could be slightly more informative, but it's well-structured.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema. The description is minimal and doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of machine objects with properties), any common use cases, or how 'filter' refines results. However, given the simplicity and full schema coverage, it's adequately complete for basic invocation, but misses nuances like how 'top' interacts with 'filter'.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what's in the schema; it doesn't clarify the 'filter' parameter's relationship to the 'top' parameter or the exact format of the filter. However, since schema coverage is complete, this is acceptable.

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 ('List') and resource ('devices that communicated with a domain'), which is clear. It also adds the helpful insight that this reveals the 'lateral scope of a domain,' distinguishing it from other domain-related tools like defender_get_domain_alerts or defender_get_domain_statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, so it's not 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need to know which machines communicated with a domain, i.e., lateral scope) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with defender_get_domain_alerts or defender_get_machines. This is adequate but leaves room for inference.

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