List machine pools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that filtering and sorting are server-side and that pagination is cursor-based, which goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the call semantics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and the key operational features immediately.

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 read-only list tool with rich annotations and a highly descriptive input schema, the description covers the essential operation and pagination model. It does not describe the return payload or next_cursor behavior directly, but no output schema is provided and the cursor parameter documentation in the schema compensates for that gap.

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 80%, so the input schema already documents nearly all parameters thoroughly, including glob syntax, sort enums, limit bounds, and cursor usage. The description only generically references filtering, sorting, and pagination and does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('machine pools'), and it is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like pools_get, pools_create, and pools_update. The additional mention of filtering, sorting, and pagination clarifies the tool's scope without ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pools_get or other list tools. The description implies a list operation but does not state prerequisites, exclusion conditions, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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