Get a machine

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by scoping what is returned and explicitly stating 'Never its keys' — a security-relevant negative that steers agents toward get_endpoint_key. It does not mention behavior for unknown/expired IDs.

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?

One dense sentence with the resource front-loaded, then the returned facets, then an important exclusion at the end. No filler and nothing redundant with the title.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, and the one non-obvious caveat (keys excluded). Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single machine_id parameter already carries an example format (cnx-7f3a9c) plus length bounds, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup guidance for the identifier.

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?

Names a specific verb (get) and resource (one machine) and enumerates the returned facets: state, connection details, time left, keep-running status, costs. The phrase 'One machine' implicitly distinguishes it from list_machines, so an agent can route between single-fetch and listing without opening another schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'One machine' vs. the list_machines sibling signals the retrieve-a-single-record case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. machine must exist / be owned by caller), and no named alternative for related needs like get_endpoint_key.

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