get_machine

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

The description clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Get detailed information'), which implies no mutation. No annotations are present, but for a simple getter this is reasonably transparent. It doesn't discuss errors or access requirements, but the operation's safety is evident.

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 concise sentence that states exactly what the tool does. No filler or ambiguity.

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?

There is an output schema (per context), so return structure is presumably defined. The single required parameter is documented with its source. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke this simple getter correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters, including a helpful note ('Machine ID — obtain from list_machines'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific action (get detailed information) on a specific resource (a machine). It effectively distinguishes from list-oriented siblings like list_machines by indicating a single, specific machine. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 parameter schema explicitly instructs to obtain machine_id from list_machines, providing clear context for how to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the read-only retrieval context is clear.

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