List machines

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('with their connection state'), implying a read-only listing, but never states that it is read-only, what a disconnected entry looks like, or what happens if the core has no machines. Useful but thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the identification of the returned set front-loaded before the follow-up usage hint.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return shape itself. It says the result includes names and a connection state but gives no field names, ordering, or format for 'connection state', leaving an agent to discover the payload by calling it.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of `on` and `machine/t7` is argument syntax for other tools rather than a parameter of this one, but it does add relevant meaning for how the output is consumed.

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?

States the specific resource (machines added to this core over ssh or via a command) and what makes it distinct: 'the other machines'. The listing verb is only in the title, so the description itself is a noun phrase, but purpose is unmistakable and separated from siblings like herdr_status/herdr_app_ls.

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?

'Use their names in `on` and `machine/t7`' gives concrete downstream usage, which implies when to call it (before targeting a machine). However, no explicit when-not or named alternative is given among the many herdr_* siblings, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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