get_servers_by_machine_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the HTTP method and resource, so it contributes little beyond what annotations provide.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and avoids unnecessary padding. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 simple one-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks detail about what 'server details' includes or how to source machine_id, but those gaps are minor given the simple scope.

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%, and the description provides the single parameter's meaning: 'the unique machine identifier of the server.' This is helpful but largely restates the parameter name and title without giving format, examples, or how to obtain the identifier.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get Server Details' for GET /servers/{machineId}. This is clear and not a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_servers or list_server.

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 endpoint and machine_id parameter imply this tool is for retrieving details for a single known server. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving usage mostly to inference.

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