List machines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one contribution is disclosing the default ordering (created_at desc, then id desc), which is genuinely useful when the sort parameter is omitted. It adds a small amount of context beyond the schema.

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?

It is a single sentence with no padding, so there is no verbosity problem. However, the sentence chosen as the entire description carries an ordering detail rather than the essential purpose, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economical writing.

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 seven-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description omits any statement of what is returned, pagination expectations, or filter behavior, leaving the ordering note as the sole content. It is not adequate to tell an agent what calling this tool yields.

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 86%, so the schema already documents name, sort, limit, cursor, source_kind, and machine_pool_id in detail. The description only touches ordering, which loosely relates to the sort parameter's default, and adds no syntax or format information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 never states that the tool lists machines; it only describes the default ordering of items. The purpose is inferable solely from the name and title, which the description does nothing to confirm or extend. This is closer to an ordering footnote than a purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as machines_get, pools_list, or grant_machines_list, and no conditions or prerequisites are mentioned. Nothing distinguishes this listing call from the other list operations in the toolset.

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