machine_get

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that a wrong ID yields a 404 error. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not describe the return format or other edge cases, so it is not a 5.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. The [READ] prefix is succinct, and while 'teaching' is a minor typo, the sentence is efficient and clear.

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, and annotations are helpful, but the description leaves gaps: it does not clarify what 'full detail' includes, does not explain the 'target' parameter, and with no output schema, the return structure is unspecified. This makes it adequate but not complete.

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 only mentions 'by id', which partially explains machine_id. The 'target' parameter is completely unexplained, including its nullable/default nature. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving full detail for a single Horizon desktop machine by ID. The [READ] prefix reinforces it as a read operation, and it distinguishes from siblings like machine_list and machine_reset by focusing on one machine's details.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need full detail for a specific machine and have its ID. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like machine_list for listing all machines, so the guidance remains implied rather than directive.

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