machine_get

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the 404 behavior on wrong ids, enumerating the return projection (id, name, pool_id, state, assigned user, agent_version, base_image), and clarifying that it uses a single GET rather than a list scan. This is valuable behavioral context not available from annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core read action in the first sentenceair quotes and supporting context in the next two sentences. There is no fluff; every phrase contributes to selection, invocation, or error understanding.

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?

For a simple single-fetch tool with two parameters nhỏ, the description covers purpose, when to use it, behavior on wrong ids, and the full return shape despite the lack of an output schema. The optional target parameter is fully documented in the input schema, so nothing essential 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%, and the schema already explains machine_id as an opaque id, not a display name or vCenter VM name, with the 404 hint. The main description doesn't add much beyond confirming the id comes from a machine_list row, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with '[READ] One Horizon desktop machine by id', naming a specific verb, resource, and lookup method. It also distinguishes itself from machine_list by explicitly saying it fetches one row instead of scanning the estate, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 're-check one machine after a write, or when you already hold an id.' It also contrasts with machine_list by noting the same projection is fetched with a single GET 'instead of scanning the estate', and the schema's wrong-id hint tells the agent to re-run machine_list for exact ids.

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