listMachineTypes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the tool is read-only (via '[READ-ONLY]'), specifies required API scope ('machines:read'), and implies safe retrieval behavior. It lacks details on rate limits, pagination, or error handling, but covers key behavioral traits adequately for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by API correspondence and requirements, all in three concise sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds value: retrieval scope, HTTP method mapping, and authorization details.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, API mapping, and authorization. It lacks output details (e.g., format or structure of the list) and potential constraints like pagination, but for a simple read tool, this is sufficient with minor gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied as it compensates for the lack of parameters by not adding unnecessary information.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Retrieves a list') and resources ('all Tulip machine types and their corresponding machines'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's about machine types rather than stations, tables, users, etc. The mention of 'Corresponds to GET /machines' reinforces the exact operation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Requires the `machines:read` API key scope'), providing clear context for authorization. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. listStations or retrieveMachineActivityArchive), missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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