List Hosted Machines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the fields each item carries (online status, GPU model/count, hourly earnings, uptime 0..1) and the constraint that live metrics are single-machine only. Pagination and rate-limit behavior are not disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the list-vs-single distinction, then units. It is dense but every clause carries information; the unit-conversion arithmetic is the only part bordering on over-specification.

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 an output schema present, the description doesn't need to enumerate return fields, yet it does so usefully for units. The real gap is that a paginated list tool (limit/cursor, 0% schema coverage) never explains how paging works or what the cursor represents.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains `include_metrics` and the meaning/units of everything inside `metrics`, but says nothing about `limit` or `cursor`, and it refers to 'machine_id' while the actual parameter is named `machine`, which could cause a mis-invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource ('list their machines, or show one by machine_id') and scopes it to users who host hardware on Meshive. The list-vs-single distinction is explicit, so an agent can pick the right mode without opening the 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?

Gives clear context (hosting users) and a conditional instruction: set `include_metrics` for a single machine's live usage, which implicitly rules it out for bulk listing. No sibling alternative is named (e.g., cpus/gpus), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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