machine_list

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context: pagination, return fields (id, name, pool_id, state, etc.), and the intended use as a verification step. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-organized with a [READ] tag, a concise summary, return item list, and a clear Args block. Every sentence contributes information without unnecessary fluff.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers return item structure, pagination, filtering, and the target parameter. It also places the tool in context relative to write tools. This is complete for its intended use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the Args section fully explains all 5 parameters: pool, state, limit, offset, and target. It gives defaults, examples for state, and clarifies the target source. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it lists Horizon desktop machines with optional filtering by pool and state, and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like machine_get (single machine) and mutating tools (machine_reset, machine_remove).

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 provides usage context by stating it serves as a verification pair for machine write tools, and describes filtering options. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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