get_vdi_machine

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, but the description still adds real value: the exact field projection returned, the single-GET behavior, and the 404-with-remediation-hint failure mode on a bad id. It stops short of pagination/latency or auth details, which are minor here.

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?

Front-loaded with a [READ] tag and the core purpose, then the projection, then the usage condition. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (id, name, pool_id, state, assigned user, agent_version, base_image). Combined with the 404 behavior note and usage condition, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 machine_id and target are fully documented in the schema, including the disambiguation from display name and vCenter VM name. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, so 3 is correct.

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+resource+scope: 'One Horizon desktop machine by id', and frames it against the sibling list_vdi_machines row projection. An agent can immediately tell this fetches a single machine rather than scanning the estate.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('re-check one machine after a write, or when you already hold an id') and implicitly contrasts it with the alternative of scanning the estate via list_vdi_machines. The condition selecting this tool over the list sibling is unambiguous.

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