vsz_get_cluster_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what state is retrieved, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. This lack of detail is a gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured: one line for the action and a clear 'Args' block for parameters. It avoids fluff but is still minimal; there is no redundant content.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter nature and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It explains what the tool does and the parameter format, but does not provide additional context like usage scenarios, limitations, or required access levels, which would enhance completeness.

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 description adds meaningful semantics to the 'host' parameter by stating it is a vSZ controller IP or hostname. The input schema only specifies 'string', so this explanation compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and clarifies the expected format.

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: to get cluster state, specifically node status and roles. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other tools in the sibling list, which target different resources like zones, APs, or WLANs.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool should be preferred, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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