Search HTB Machines

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: search is client-side, results are relevance-ranked, and `profiles` triggers one API request per machine that 'can take minutes'. It stops short of describing result shape or pagination behavior, but the cost disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the two flags that change cost, then the follow-up action. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

No output schema, but the description tells the agent how to proceed after a hit (htb_machine_profile) and what the search surface is. It does not explain result ordering details or what happens when the scan hits maxPages, which are minor gaps for a read-only search tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema for `all` (scan retired machines) and `profiles` (matches description text, and why it is slow). limit/maxPages/retired are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 ('Client-side search over the HTB machine lists, ranked by relevance') and enumerates exactly which fields are matched, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling htb_machine_list. An agent can tell what this does 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for the two expensive flags ('Use `all` to also scan retired machines', 'use it only when list fields are not enough'), warns about cost, and routes the agent to the next step ('Follow up with htb_machine_profile on a candidate'). Alternatives and exclusions are both named.

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