list_machines

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies this as a read-only listing operation and specifies the default behavior when folder_name is omitted. However, it does not disclose potential edge behaviors like whether folder scoping includes subfolders, exact match requirements, or pagination, leaving some gaps.

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 extremely concise, front-loading the key action and optional parameter. Every sentence adds value, and the format is clean and readable, with no wasted words.

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 is simple with one optional parameter, and the description covers the action, scoping semantics, and default behavior. Since an output schema exists, return values are not the description's responsibility. A minor gap is the absence of details about folder-matching behavior, but overall the context is sufficient.

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 provides only the property name, type, and default with 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining that folder_name is the display name, is optional, and defines the behavior when omitted, adding significant meaning beyond the raw 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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('machines'), and clearly states the optional folder scoping. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools (e.g., list_folders, list_jobs) by naming a unique resource, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly states that folder_name is optional and that omitting it returns all machines, giving clear context for parameter usage. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with listing machines, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable.

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