get-machine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or any auth/rate-limit implications. 'Get' implies retrieval, but does not add beyond the tool name or state that the machine is not modified, which is a notable gap for an unannotated tool.

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, direct sentence that communicates the core function without fluff. It is slightly under-specified for a tool with two inputs, but it is not terse to the point of confusion and earns its place.

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?

The tool has a knowledgeable output schema and fully documented parameters, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, the absence of any usage context (e.g., when to call this vs. an alternative) makes it less complete for an agent facing several similar sibling tools.

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 100%, so the input schema already provides meaning for 'name' and 'target'. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond what the schema gives, and therefore appropriately sits at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('one machine'), and the nature of the result ('state and resources'). The singular 'one machine' cleanly distinguishes it from sibling list-machines, and 'state and resources' separates it from machine-logs.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-machines or machine-logs. There is no mention of scenarios for single-machine inspection, no exclusions, and no conditional guidance for choosing a target (local vs cloud).

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