vsz_get_system_inventory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or any rate limits or error behaviors. The only disclosed aspect is the data content, which is purpose rather than behavior.

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 a single line of purpose followed by a parameter definition, with no redundant text. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately clarifies the required input.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's function and input. It could add context about network prerequisites or the format of the inventory, but the output schema addresses the return structure.

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 single parameter 'host' is described as 'vSZ controller IP or hostname', adding concrete meaning beyond the schema's generic string type. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 retrieves system inventory with per-zone AP and client statistics, using a specific verb ('get') and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_system_info or get_system_summary.

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 implies it should be used when detailed per-zone AP and client statistics are needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of alternative tools for similar inventory queries.

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