List machines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about ordering and returned fields, but does not explain pagination, permissions, or how defaults like active_only affect results.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the resource and scope, then lists the most relevant return attributes.

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?

This is a simple listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in depth. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could briefly clarify the default filters and when to prefer get_machine for details.

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 describes two of three parameters (whole_team and active_only) and limit is self-explanatory with min/max/default values. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but the schema coverage is adequate enough that this is a minimum-viable case.

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 (machines), the scope (your machines), the ordering (newest first), and the key fields returned. This clearly distinguishes a personal machine listing from generic GPU/app listings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from get_machine.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_machine, list_gpus, or list_apps. The phrase 'Your machines' implies a personal listing use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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