HTB Machine Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behaviour, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the default curated output shape and the full=true switch to the raw payload, though it says nothing about error behaviour when a name is ambiguous or missing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and identifier examples before the return-value list. The field enumeration is slightly long but earns its place given no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the info block fields and explains the full flag, which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of covering lookup-failure or ambiguous-name behaviour, but the core is 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the example id/name form and the full=true meaning. The description largely restates those schema descriptions rather than adding new semantics (no format, no ambiguity or case-sensitivity rules), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Show a machine profile') with two accepted identifier forms, and enumerates the returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from htb_machine_list, htb_machine_search, and htb_machine_active without opening the schema.

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 by the id/name lookup phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to siblings like htb_machine_search when the user only has a partial name. The agent must infer the lookup context.

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