machine_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the bar is lower. The description adds the noteworthy 404 behavior on a wrong id, which is valuable beyond the annotation. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a simple get, this is sufficient.

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?

A single sentence with a clear [READ] prefix. Every word earns its place, no redundant details, and the 404 clarification is concise and useful.

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 is simple, but with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'full detail' includes and explain the target parameter. It is adequate for basic invocation but leaves gaps for optional parameters and return structure.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'by id' for machine_id, leaving the optional target parameter completely unexplained. There is no detail about formats or how target relates to machine_id.

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 uses a specific verb 'read' and resource 'machine' with scope 'one by id', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like machine_list (list all), machine_reset, and machine_remove. The [READ] prefix reinforces its read-only nature.

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 phrase 'Full detail for one Horizon desktop machine by id' implies the intended use case: when a specific machine_id is known and full details are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context makes it evident this is the detail counterpart to machine_list.

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