Nutanix AIops

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.10.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (e.g., snapshot_list vs snapshot_create, vm_power_on vs vm_power_off). Tools for different resources are clearly separated, and even similar operations (like guest shutdown vs hard power-off) are well-differentiated by name and description.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent `resource_action` pattern in snake_case (e.g., vm_list, snapshot_create, storage_container_delete). No mixing of conventions or unexpected verb forms.
Tool Count1/5
With 51 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 tools. Many tools are variations of list/get/create/update/delete for different resources, leading to an excessively large surface that may overwhelm agents.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of Nutanix infrastructure management: VMs, snapshots, alerts, clusters, hosts, images, categories, subnets, storage containers, LCM, DR, and auditing. CRUD and lifecycle operations are present for major resources, along with specialized analysis and undo capabilities.
Average 4.3/5 across 51 of 51 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 24 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 10, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It claims 'read-safe validation' but begins with '[WRITE][risk=medium],' creating an internal contradiction. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes, leaving behavior unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the main action and risk level, followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the embedded '[WRITE]' tag could be considered clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately but lacks details on what the precheck returns (e.g., success, issues) and how to interpret results. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all three parameters with helpful context: cluster_ext_id references cluster_list, entity_ext_ids links to lcm_inventory, and target explains omission behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Run LCM prechecks for entities on a cluster (read-safe validation),' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like lcm_inventory (list) and lcm_update (apply), though the '[WRITE]' tag slightly confuses the read-safe claim.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description labels it as 'read-safe validation' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like lcm_inventory or lcm_update. It implies prechecks before updates but lacks direct guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, description must carry burden. Only indicates WRITE and risk=medium. No details on auth, side effects, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: header with risk tag and bulleted args. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so return value not explained. Parameter info adequate but basic. Sibling tools not referenced. Could add return info and parameter constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, description adds brief context for each parameter (e.g., 'from cluster_list', 'Copies kept per block'). Adds value but could be more detailed (e.g., valid ranges).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a storage container on a cluster' with verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like storage_container_list, delete, update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use. Mentions cluster_ext_id from cluster_list but no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description includes a '[WRITE][risk=medium]' tag indicating it's a write operation with medium risk, adding some transparency. No contradiction with annotations (none). Lacks details on side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with risk and purpose, and uses a docstring format for args. Every sentence adds information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has low complexity (3 params, no output schema). Description covers purpose, args, and risk, but lacks return value info and preconditions (e.g., source VM state). Missing context for a clone operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: vm_ext_id as source from vm_list, new_name as clone name, target with omission default. This adds value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it clones a VM to a new name, with a specific verb and resource. It includes a risk tag. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vm_create or vm_migrate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains argument roles and default behavior for 'target', but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vm_create). No when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes a risk level ('medium') and notes reversibility, but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., data impact, downtime) and required permissions. With no annotations, more context would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a one-line header with risk and reversibility, followed by a clear args list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no description of return value or operation behavior (async vs sync). The reversibility note is helpful, but the tool's context is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter's purpose: ext_id as identifier from list, max_capacity_bytes as optional, replication_factor as optional, and target as optional PC target. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Resize a container's capacity / replication' and specifies the resource as a storage container. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are read-only or create/delete operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like storage_container_create or storage_container_delete. The description implies it's for resizing, but does not provide exclusion criteria or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It only labels it as '[WRITE][risk=medium]' but does not mention outcomes, reversibility, error behavior, or permissions required. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: a header line followed by a list of arguments. It front-loads the risk and action, and every line serves a purpose. Minor redundancy in the arg list could be tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and inputs adequately but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., need a cluster). This leaves gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning to all 5 parameters: e.g., 'name: New subnet name', 'cluster_ext_id: Target cluster extId (from cluster_list)'. This provides helpful context beyond the schema, though some constraints (e.g., VLAN ID range) are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[WRITE][risk=medium] Create a subnet on a cluster.' clearly stating the action (create) and resource (subnet on a cluster). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like subnet_list, subnet_get, subnet_delete.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives basic parameter usage like 'target' being 'Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., use subnet_list to view subnets). Usage context is implied but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes a '[WRITE][risk=medium]' tag indicating it is a mutating operation with medium risk. It also clarifies there is no inverse operation. However, it does not disclose details like required permissions, whether the reboot is graceful or forced, or if the operation is synchronous or asynchronous. In the absence of annotations, this provides moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear header line and a structured 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary details and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence is informative, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains all parameters and notes the risk level. However, it lacks details about return behavior (e.g., whether it returns immediately or waits) and potential side effects, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward reboot operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: vm_ext_id ('VM extId as returned by vm_list'), dry_run ('return what WOULD be rebooted without doing it'), and target ('Prism Central target name...'). These descriptions add significant meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Reboot a VM' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vm_power_off and vm_guest_shutdown by noting it performs a reboot. The phrase 'no distinct inverse' adds clarity about reversibility.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not specify use cases, prerequisites, or conditions for choosing reboot versus power off or guest shutdown. The only contextual hint is 'no distinct inverse', which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses several behavioral traits: it is a write operation (WRITE), medium risk, auto-handles ETag (concurrency), and captures prior state (potential undo). However, it does not detail what 'resolve' actually changes in the system or any prerequisites/permissions required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear header indicating operation type and risk, a one-sentence purpose, and a bulleted argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral traits (ETag, prior state). Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), it is nearly complete. A slight improvement would be mentioning the return value or any side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the 'Args' section explicitly explains both parameters: alert_ext_id (source and format) and target (default behavior). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Resolve an alert' with a specific verb and resource. The '[WRITE][risk=medium]' prefix further clarifies the operation type and risk level, distinguishing it from sibling tools like alert_acknowledge.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., alert_acknowledge). It lacks explicit context about typical workflows or conditions that warrant resolution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It includes '[WRITE][risk=medium]' indicating mutation and risk level, but does not explain what 'minimal' entails, whether changes are reversible, or error handling behavior. More detail on permissions or side effects would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear purpose sentence, an argument list, and a tag for write/risk. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameter semantics partially but lacks return value information, error conditions, or notes on asynchronous behavior. It is adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining parameters: cluster_ext_id from cluster_list, target as Prism Central target, default values for num_sockets (1) and memory_bytes (4 GiB). However, it omits details like name uniqueness constraints or accepted formats for memory_bytes.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a minimal VM on a cluster' which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_list, vm_get, vm_update, vm_clone, and vm_delete, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides basic parameter explanations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like vm_clone. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is not appropriate, such as when a pre-existing VM configuration is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description includes [WRITE] tag, risk level, and behaviors like auto-handling ETag and capturing prior state. However, it lacks details on permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise with no wasted words. Uses a clear front-loaded format with tags and structured args section.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequately covers purpose and parameters for a simple tool with 2 inputs and no output schema. Additional info on return values or error cases would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: alert_ext_id source and target default behavior, going beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Acknowledge an alert' with specific verb and resource. Distinguished from siblings like alert_list and alert_resolve by its action and auto-handle ETag detail.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context for arguments (e.g., alert_ext_id from alert_list) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like alert_resolve or advise when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility. It includes a [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, indicating a write operation with medium risk. However, it lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or consequences of missing entities, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear purpose line, risk indicator, and structured Args section. It is front-loaded and efficient, though a brief note on the return value could improve completeness without adding clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's action, parameters, and risk level adequately. It is missing only a mention of expected response or success/failure indicators, which would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully explains all three parameters: category_ext_id (from category_list), vm_ext_ids (from vm_list), and target (optional, omit for default). It provides context beyond the schema names, meeting the need for clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Bulk-associate a category to a set of VMs.' It uses a specific verb (bulk-associate) and identifies the resources (category and VMs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like category_list or category_create.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that category_ext_id comes from category_list and vm_ext_ids from vm_list, implying context but not explicitly stating when to use this tool versus alternatives like category_create or direct VM updates. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes a [WRITE][risk=medium] tag, indicating it mutates state and has medium risk, which adds transparency beyond the tool name. However, it does not detail error handling, idempotency, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loading the purpose and risk, then listing parameters in a clear format. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the description covers parameters well, it omits the return value or response structure. Given no output schema, this gap reduces completeness for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter's meaning and providing examples, adding significant value over the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a category key/value pair, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like category_list and category_assign.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating new categories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like category_assign. Lacks exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation with '[READ]' and describes the limit parameter's effect, but does not explicitly confirm idempotency, lack of side effects, or authentication requirements. The disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args block uses a clean format. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose and parameters), but it is efficient without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description lists returned fields and explains limit reporting. It is complete for a simple list tool, though it omits pagination details beyond the truncated flag and error handling. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain parameters. It clearly defines 'limit' (max rows, default 500, with truncation reporting) and 'target' (Prism Central name, omit for default). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[READ]' and explicitly states 'List storage containers' along with the fields returned (extId, name, cluster, capacity, usage, RF). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools (e.g., snapshot_list, host_list) by its resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the limit and target parameters, including default behavior and the report of truncated results. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other list tools or provide exclusions (e.g., when to use storage_container_list vs storage_container_get or alternative filtering methods).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that limit controls pagination and the result includes returned, limit, truncated flags for transparency. It also mentions target from config. No destructive behavior implied, and read-only nature is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise with a clear header and argument list. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, description explains key return fields (extId, name, replicationType) and pagination flags. It lacks error handling details, but provides sufficient context for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: explains limit as max rows (default 500) and its pagination behavior, and target as Prism Central target name from config. This provides context beyond raw schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it lists protection domains/policies with specific fields (extId, name, replicationType). The [READ] tag reinforces it's a read operation. It distinguishes from siblings like snapshot_list and recovery_point_list by naming the exact resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains arguments but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snapshot_list or recovery_point_list. It lacks context for selection among similar list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description indicates a write operation with risk=medium but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, or success/failure indicators.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Every sentence earns its place; clear heading, list of arguments, and concise explanations. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers input parameters well but lacks output specification or error conditions. For a simple write tool, more context on return value would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage); description adds meaning by referencing source tools and clarifying optional target. Could specify format further.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Associate' and resource 'VM with a protection policy'. Distinct from sibling tools which are other VM operations or protection-related actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Specifies arguments and sources (vm_list, protection_domain_list) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description mentions 'READ' and explains aggregation logic (clock-free, reproducible). Enough for a read-only tool with no destructive hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise overall, but the age computation sentence is somewhat lengthy. Well-structured with initial summary and detailed explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks details on output structure (e.g., format of counts, oldest alert fields). Given no output schema, more info would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains 'target' parameter as Prism Central target name; omit for default. Adds meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it triages active Prism alerts with per-severity counts and oldest unresolved alert. Distinct from siblings like analyze_alert, alert_list, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly recommends using analyze_alert for per-alert correlation, but lacks negative guidance or comparison to other siblings like alert_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the operation as '[READ]', details the data collected (all clusters, hosts, storage containers), defines thresholds (80%/90%), and explains how findings are reported (worst-first, with percentages/state strings). This provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand behavior and side effects (none).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a title line, a detailed paragraph, and a parameter list. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value and the structure aids readability. Minor improvements could tighten wording, but overall effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: worst-first findings covering specific conditions (degraded fault tolerance, storage thresholds, unhealthy nodes, host count mismatches) with cited metrics. Inputs are covered via the parameter description. This provides a complete picture for an agent to decide and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'target' as a Prism Central target name from config, with omission defaulting to the default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool collects estate health RCA data including resiliency state, storage headroom, and nodes down, and reports worst-first findings. It differentiates from siblings by specifying it covers all clusters, hosts, and storage containers, making its purpose distinct from simpler tools like cluster_health or host_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for comprehensive health root cause analysis by listing all collected data and finding types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of siblings suggests differentiation, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes '[READ]' indicating a read-only operation and 'Point-in-time' clarifying the nature of the data. Since no annotations are provided, this is good coverage for a simple retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and lists parameters efficiently. Every sentence adds value without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and parameters for a simple read operation. It lists the metrics (CPU, memory, storage, IOPS), though it lacks output structure details, which is acceptable given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains that cluster_ext_id is from cluster_list and that target can be omitted for the default config. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves point-in-time CPU, memory, storage, and IOPS utilization for a cluster. The verb 'READ' and specific resource make it distinct from sibling tools like cluster_health.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that cluster_ext_id comes from cluster_list, providing some context. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives like cluster_health or explain when to use it over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses read nature and ETag provision, but does not mention error behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. Some behavioral context is given, but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is two lines plus argument list, extremely concise and front-loaded with '[READ]' to immediately convey action. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get tool with no output schema, description covers input parameters and basic behavior (read, ETag). Could mention error cases or return format, but overall it is sufficiently complete given tool simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds necessary meaning. It explains that ext_id comes from subnet_list and target is optional with default behavior. This clarifies usage beyond the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it is a READ operation for one subnet by extId, and distinguishes itself from list or create/delete tools by mentioning 'One subnet' and 'ETag surfaced for downstream writes.' It uses a clear verb-resource pair.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies when to use: after subnet_list to get details and ETag. It explains arguments (ext_id from list, optional target). Not explicitly stating when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear for a retrieval tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a write, high-risk, and reversible, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., downtime, constraints), error handling, or asynchronous behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two paragraphs with clear purpose and argument list. No fluff; every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the key verb and risk level.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks output/return value description and details on async behavior, failure modes, or prerequisites (e.g., host must be in same cluster). Siblings are many, but the tool's niche is clear. Could be more complete for a high-risk operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that vm_ext_id comes from vm_list, target_host_ext_id from host_list, dry_run as preview, and target as optional Prism Central reference. Schema has 0% coverage, so this is essential.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: live-migrate a VM to another host. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and notes reversibility ('reversible → prior host'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on snapshots, power operations, or queries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides guidance on using dry_run=True for preview and mentions audit annotations for approval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vm_clone or vm_create, though the scope is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation as read-only, lists returned fields, and explains the truncation behavior (reports returned, limit, truncated). However, it omits details like sorting order, authentication requirements, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single-line purpose followed by three short parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the '[READ]' tag and core purpose, with no filler or redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return fields and truncation metadata. However, it could be more complete by including typical response structure (e.g., whether results are batched, total count) and constraints like maximum limit. Still, it provides sufficient context for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are explained beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). 'severity' is clarified with an example and omission behavior; 'limit' explains default, meaning, and truncation reporting; 'target' describes its origin and default. The description fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '[READ] List alerts' with specific fields returned (extId, title, severity, impact, ack/resolved, affected entity). This distinguishes it from sibling alert actions (analyze_alert, alert_acknowledge, alert_resolve) and other entity list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a '[READ]' tag implying read-only usage, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use or provide comparisons to sibling list tools (e.g., event_list, audit_list), leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description effectively communicates that the tool is read-only via the '[READ]' prefix and states it is 'Resilient and deterministic — safe to run on a live, alerting cluster'. This adds confidence but lacks information on error behaviors, rate limits, or potential side effects beyond the read assurance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences plus two parameter lines) and well-structured: a summary, a results line, a safety line, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value (probable cause, suggested actions, related events), which is adequate for a moderately complex tool. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the output, nor does it cover error scenarios or prerequisites beyond obtaining the alert_ext_id. Still, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining alert_ext_id as 'Alert extId as returned by alert_list' and target as 'Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default'. This gives the agent actionable context for parameter values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool performs root-cause analysis by correlating an alert with recent same-entity events, and specifies the output (probable cause, suggested actions, related events). This distinctly separates it from siblings like alert_list (listing) and alert_acknowledge/resolve (action-oriented), and even from alert_triage_rca by emphasizing event correlation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for deep analysis of a single alert, indicated by 'Root-cause analysis', and states it is safe to run on live clusters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it compare with alternatives like alert_triage_rca or event_list. More explicit guidance would improve utility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior ('No clock or randomness — same inputs, same answer') and the outcome when 'daily_growth_bytes' is omitted. This is sufficient for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: a brief summary line, followed by a paragraph explaining behavior, and a 'Args:' list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. The [READ] tag at the beginning is helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers inputs and behavior well, but lacks details about the return value format (e.g., what does the output look like? Is it a number, a string?). Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. This is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'cluster_ext_id: Cluster extId as returned by cluster_list', 'daily_growth_bytes: Assumed daily storage growth in bytes (omit to skip forecast)', and 'target: Prism Central target name from config; omit for the default.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's basic titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Deterministic storage-runway estimate for a cluster (days-to-full).' It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('storage-runway'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which are mostly cluster management, snapshots, etc. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to supply the 'daily_growth_bytes' parameter ('Supply daily_growth_bytes... to project daysToFull') and the consequence of omitting it ('forecast is 'insufficient-data''). It also notes that 'target' is optional. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and the tool is distinct from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the read-only nature via '[READ]', explains the limit behavior (default 500, capped read, result fields returned/limit/truncated), and mentions the target parameter's role. It does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences for the main purpose and two lines for arguments. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned fields and behavior. It could be improved by noting the response structure (e.g., array of objects) or pagination, but it is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: limit (max rows, default 500, reporting returned/limit/truncated) and target (Prism Central target from config, omit for default), adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[READ]' and clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'categories', specifying the returned fields (extId, key, value, description). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like category_create and category_assign, and from other list tools by resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading categories and mentions the Prism Central target, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling list tools (e.g., snapshot_list, host_list) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description starts with '[READ]' indicating a safe read operation, and explains that the result reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` for transparent pagination. However, with no annotations, it could be more explicit about safety and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (5 lines), front-loaded with the summary, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists returned fields and pagination behavior, which is adequate for a simple list tool. However, it lacks sorting, filtering, or error handling details. Without an output schema, the description provides a good overview.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining the limit parameter's purpose, default, and result reporting, and the target parameter's meaning and default. This adds critical context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states '[READ] List events' with specific fields (extId, title, creation time, source entity). This clearly defines the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like snapshot_list or alert_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the parameters and their defaults, but lacks guidance on when to use event_list versus similar tools like audit_list or task_list. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates the tool is read-only via '[READ]' and discloses that the limit parameter results in a capped read with truncation indicators. No side effects or authorization information is given, but the read behavior is well explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with a [READ] tag and a brief purpose, followed by parameter bullet points. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two params and no output schema, the description provides a good overview including response truncation fields. It could be slightly improved by stating the response is an array of hosts, but it is generally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds substantial meaning: limit is described as max rows with behavior (capped read, returned/limit/truncated fields), and target is explained as a Prism Central target name from config. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a READ operation to list hosts across all clusters, and explicitly lists the fields returned (extId, cluster, hypervisor, CPU/mem). It distinguishes from sibling tools like snapshot_list or vm_list by specifying the resource 'host' and the scope 'across all clusters'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tags the tool as [READ] and explains the limit and target arguments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or when to omit the target is provided beyond the parameter description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explicitly labels the tool as [READ], indicating it is non-destructive. It also discloses the limit parameter's behavior (reporting returned, limit, truncated) for transparency on capped reads. However, it does not mention auth requirements or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one line for purpose and two lines for parameters. Every sentence serves a clear function, and the purpose is front-loaded. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what is listed, parameter behaviors, and result reporting. It could optionally mention that the result is a list, but the context is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear meanings: limit explains max rows, default, and reporting behavior; target explains it's a Prism Central target name from config. This adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[READ] List LCM-managed entities: current/available versions and updateAvailable.' It clearly states it's a read operation, specifies what it lists (entities, versions, updateAvailable), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lcm_update and lcm_precheck.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for listing inventory but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like lcm_precheck or lcm_update. No mention of when not to use or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly marks the tool as [READ], discloses the return fields, and explains the limit parameter's reporting behavior (returned, limit, truncated). With no annotations, this provides good transparency about read-only nature and pagination behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose and outputs, subsequent sentences explain parameters. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers return fields and parameter behavior. The tool is simple (list with two parameters), and the description adequately informs the agent. Could mention response structure but sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains both parameters: limit (max rows, default 500, reports truncation) and target (Prism Central target, omit for default). This 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'recovery points', and enumerates the return fields (extId, vmExtId, create/expiration time, locationType). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_list or protection_domain_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar alternatives (e.g., snapshot_list, protection_domain_list). While the purpose is clear, no when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the write nature, medium risk, reversibility, and auto-handling of ETags. However, it omits details on return values, sync/async behavior, or error scenarios, slightly reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficient, front-loaded with metadata ([WRITE][risk=medium]), followed by a clear summary and bullet-style parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, risk, reversibility, and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks mention of the return value or how to interpret success, which would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains each parameter: vm_ext_id is from vm_list, name is the snapshot name, target is optional Prism Central target. This adds significant meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Snapshot a VM' with specific verb and resource, and notes it is reversible by deleting the snapshot. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_delete and snapshot_restore, providing excellent purpose clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating the action and parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snapshot_list or recovery_point_list. It does not mention when not to use it or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the result reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` to indicate capped reads, and it marks itself as a read operation. Without annotations, this provides good behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or error states.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single-line purpose followed by a numbered list of arguments. Every sentence is informative with no fluff. The [READ] prefix front-loads the operation type.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key points: purpose, parameter semantics, and simple pagination behavior. However, it could mention how to use the returned snapshot extIds with sibling tools like snapshot_delete or snapshot_restore, which would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: vm_ext_id (returned by vm_list), limit (default 500, with pagination awareness), and target (optional). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists a VM's snapshots with specific fields (extId, name, createTime) and hints at the 'spot lingering snapshots' use case. It uses a clear [READ] tag and verb+resource structure, distinguishing it from sibling tools like snapshot_create, snapshot_delete, and snapshot_restore.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context (listing snapshots for a VM) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as recovery_point_list or protection_domain_list. There is no guidance on prerequisites or fallback tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns specific fields and explains the limit parameter's behavior, including that the response reports `returned`, `limit`, and `truncated` for capped reads. This provides good insight into pagination behavior, though it does not cover auth requirements or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single sentence for the main action and two bullet-like lines for parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essentials: what is returned, how limit works, and target usage. It could optionally mention sorting or offset for pagination, but the existing details (truncated flag) are sufficient for a filtered list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters (limit and target) are well-described beyond the schema. The limit parameter's default, max rows, and reporting behavior are explained. The target parameter is described as a Prism Central target name with an instruction to omit for default. This adds significant value over the bare schema (which has no parameter descriptions).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists subnets with specific fields (extId, name, type, VLAN, cluster, IP config), and the [READ] prefix indicates a read-only operation. The tool name itself is unambiguous, and it is distinct from sibling tools like subnet_get (single subnet) and subnet_create (write operation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing subnets in a read-only context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like subnet_get or subnet_list's sibling list tools. No when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the write nature, medium risk, delegated risk tagging, and one-time use. However, it omits details on reversibility, error states, or post-application effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a header and structured Args list. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the format is easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers essential context (token source, one-time use, dry run). It lacks return value description but adequately addresses the tool's purpose and primary usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: undo_id source, dry_run preview behavior, and target passthrough. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'apply' and the resource 'recorded undo', with specific context about dispatching an inverse tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'undo_list' (listing) or other mutation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context for previewing with dry_run and notes the one-time use constraint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It includes a [WRITE][risk=medium] flag and explains that the shutdown is reversible and that dry_run triggers a self-lockout guard without shutting down. This provides good behavioral context beyond a basic description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct with a one-line summary and bullet-like parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value; no extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral traits (reversible, dry_run). It does not detail return values or error conditions, but for a simple shutdown tool this is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains vm_ext_id is returned by vm_list, dry_run is a preview that runs the self-lockout guard, and target is optional uses default. This 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Graceful in-guest shutdown' and indicates it is reversible via power-on. It uses specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_power_off and vm_reboot by noting it is graceful and in-guest.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage notes for dry_run and target parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like vm_power_off or vm_reboot. The term 'graceful' implies a soft shutdown but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses defaults for include_esxi and limit, and mentions that the result reports 'returned', 'limit', and 'truncated' for capped reads. Provides useful behavioral details beyond a basic read annotation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: 7 lines including Args section. Front-loaded with purpose in first sentence. No redundant or unnecessary text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, parameters, and pagination behavior. Lacks explicit details about response fields (but no output schema). Adequate for a list tool with optional parameters and expected truncation handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description fully compensates: explains each parameter's purpose and behavior (include_esxi default True, limit default 500 with truncation reporting, target as Prism Central name). Adds meaning beyond schema names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Starts with '[READ] List VMs — AHV and (by default) ESXi-backed too; hypervisor field distinguishes.' Clearly states verb (List), resource (VMs), and scope (AHV and ESXi). Distinguishes from sibling list tools by mentioning hypervisor field.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: list VMs. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools like snapshot_list or vm_get. Lacks guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses that it is a write operation with medium risk, reversible via power-on, and includes a dry-run mode with a self-lockout guard. However, it does not mention potential data loss from hard power-off.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a clear structure: header indicating risk, action statement, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, or high complexity, the description adequately covers the action, parameters, and key behavioral notes (reversibility, dry_run guard). Minor gaps include lack of return value or error state info, but acceptable for a simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (vm_ext_id, dry_run, target) are explained in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the schema. vm_ext_id source is clarified, dry_run purpose with self-lockout is detailed, and target defaults explained. Schema coverage is 0% so description fully compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a 'hard power off' on a VM, using a specific verb and resource. It also notes reversibility, differentiating it from potentially destructive actions. Despite not explicitly naming siblings, the action is distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for forced power-off scenarios but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over graceful shutdown (vm_guest_shutdown) or reboot (vm_reboot). No when-not or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses it's a write operation with medium risk, handles ETags, and is reversible. It could mention behavior when VM is already on, but overall good transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is clear and front-loaded with the purpose. The arg list is structured, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting redundant formatting. Still, it is effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers setup, arg meanings, risk, and reversibility. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter: vm_ext_id from vm_list, dry_run for preview, target for config. 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Power on a VM' with a note on reversibility, and the name is explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vm_power_off and vm_reboot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides arg details but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like vm_power_off. The note 'reversible → power-off' implies context, but no explicit guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema: it includes a WRITE tag with risk=medium and notes that changes are reversible (prior values are preserved). Since no annotations are provided, this is valuable disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one header line and a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description adequately covers the action, parameters, and risk for a mutation tool. However, it does not describe the return value or how success is indicated, which is a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains each parameter's purpose and usage, including that vm_ext_id comes from vm_list, num_sockets and memory_bytes can be omitted to leave unchanged, and target is optional. This adds significant meaning over the bare schema (which has 0% description coverage).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Resize a VM's CPU sockets / memory (reversible → prior values)', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling VM operations like vm_create, vm_delete, vm_migrate, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says when to use (to resize VM resources) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings, such as vm_clone or vm_migrate for different modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description includes '[READ]' to indicate read-only. It explains what the tool reports, but could add more on idempotency or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus brief Args list. Front-loaded with purpose and action. No unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description provides a reasonable overview of returned information (services, resiliency, upgrade state). Could be more detailed, but sufficient for a simple health query.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage; the description compensates by explaining the source and usage of both parameters (cluster_ext_id from cluster_list, target from config).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'READ' and resource 'cluster health', listing specific aspects (services, resiliency, upgrade state). It distinguishes from siblings like cluster_health_rca and cluster_utilization.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear parameter guidance: cluster_ext_id from cluster_list, target from config. However, does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like cluster_health_rca.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description explicitly marks the operation as a read via [READ]. Discloses limit parameter behavior (returns returned, limit, truncated fields) to show how truncation is reported. Could mention authentication needs or rate limits, but adequate for a read-only list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three lines total: purpose line followed by two parameter explanations. Front-loaded with [READ] and purpose, no extraneous words. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description explains the tool's purpose and both parameters well, including response details for limit. Could explicitly state the return structure (list of audit records with the fields mentioned), but overall complete for a simple list tool with two parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description provides full meaning. Explains limit as max rows (default 500) with truncation reporting, and target as Prism Central target name (optional). Adds significant value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Starts with [READ] and clearly states it lists config audit records with specific fields (extId, operation type, user, creation time). Distinguishes from sibling list tools like event_list, alert_list, etc., which deal with different record types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context that it lists audit records and explains the two optional parameters. Does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like event_list or alert_list, but the purpose is distinct enough to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It declares the operation as a read and notes the ETag for downstream writes. No destructive or authentication details are needed for a simple get.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise, front-loaded sentences. No wasted words. The purpose is immediately clear, and parameter details follow efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: parameter sources, default behavior, and output (ETag). No gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'vm_ext_id' as 'VM extId as returned by vm_list' and 'target' as config-based with default omit, adding context beyond just titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[READ]', clearly indicating a read operation. It specifies the resource (One VM) and the identifier (extId). It also mentions the ETag return, distinguishing it from listing or mutation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the 'target' parameter usage and default behavior, providing context on when to omit it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vm_list or vm_update, but the read operation is self-explanatory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses high risk, destructive nature, dry_run behavior, audit tagging, and that prior name is captured in audit trail. This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly concise and well-structured with a header and bullet points for arguments. Some details like audit tagging could be slightly trimmed, but overall efficient and front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers behavior, parameters, and audit context. It might lack error conditions or permission requirements, but is otherwise complete for tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains ext_id source, dry_run side effect, and target usage with defaults, adding significant value over the bare schema. Each parameter is clearly described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[WRITE][risk=high] Delete an image.' clearly stating the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'image'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like image_list, category_create, etc., which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using dry_run=True to preview deletion and mentions audit requirements. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide contraindications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully discloses behavior: it is a write operation with high risk, destructive, supports dry-run preview, and references optional audit annotations for who/why. This is comprehensive for a destructive tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a header line, warning, and Args section. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. The front line immediately states purpose and risk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description covers input thoroughly. It lacks details on the return value of a real failover, but for a DR tool, the focus on input and safety is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains all four parameters: source of policy_ext_id (from protection_domain_list), cluster_ext_id (from cluster_list), effect of dry_run, and target default. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: failover a protection domain to a target cluster for DR. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the context of DR distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapshot_list or vm_migrate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions passing dry_run=True to preview and notes the destructive nature, providing context for safe usage. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the DR event context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the read-only nature via [READ] and explains the limit parameter's behavior (capped read, returns 'returned', 'limit', 'truncated' for visibility). With no annotations, this provides complete transparency about side effects and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence summarizing purpose, followed by two parameter explanations. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral nuance (limit truncation). It could optionally mention that the list returns all images or any default filtering, but the current level is sufficient for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining limit (max rows, default 500, truncation feedback) and target (optional Prism Central config name). This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists content-library images and specifies the fields returned (extId, name, type, size, cluster placement). The [READ] tag distinguishes it from mutation tools, and the sibling list tools (snapshot_list, etc.) are for different resources, so the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates usage for reading image lists. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for deletion use image_delete), the [READ] tag and sibling names provide sufficient context. However, explicit guidance on alternatives would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive, irreversible behavior, mentions overwriting current state, and optional audit annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured: header line with key details, then expanded explanation, then parameter list. Concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers action, risks, parameters, audit hints. Lacks mention of return values or post-revert state, but acceptable given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Provides clear explanations for all 4 parameters: vm_ext_id (from vm_list), snapshot_ext_id (from snapshot_list), dry_run (preview), target (default omit). Compensates for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Revert' and resource 'VM to a snapshot', distinguishes from siblings like snapshot_delete and vm_delete by emphasizing the destructive and irreversible nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Advises to preview first using dry_run=True and notes risk=high as audit tier 'review', implying cautious use. Could explicitly compare to siblings but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly describes the tool as destructive, irreversible, and details the audit trail capturing prior state. The dry_run parameter is also explained for safe preview.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a clear structure: risk tag, behavior summary, audit details, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (high-risk delete), the description covers purpose, usage, safety mechanisms, audit implications, and parameter details. No output schema, but the behavior is sufficiently described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema: ext_id is 'as returned by subnet_list', dry_run 'return what WOULD be deleted', target is 'Prism Central target name from config'. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a subnet' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools as no other sibling tool targets subnet deletion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: when to delete a subnet, with a preview option (dry_run=True). It mentions the high-risk nature and audit requirements but lacks explicit comparison to alternative tools or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden: declares high risk, destructive behavior, dry-run safety, and audit trail capture of prior name/power state. All key behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, uses a clear header with risk tagging and an organized Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, safety, parameters, and audit behavior well. Lacks explicit details on return values (though dry_run behavior is described) and error handling, but for a delete tool this is mostly adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides detailed explanations for all three parameters (vm_ext_id, dry_run, target), compensating for the 0% schema coverage. Each parameter's purpose and origin are clearly stated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Delete a VM' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from other VM operations like power off or reboot among siblings. The destructive nature is highlighted upfront.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance to use dry_run=True for preview before deletion, which is crucial for a destructive tool. However, it does not contrast with alternative VM actions (e.g., when to delete vs. power off), so it could be stronger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It labels the tool as '[WRITE][risk=high]' and 'Destructive', explains audit trail capture, and mentions optional audit annotations. This thoroughly discloses behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, starting with the core action, then risk, then parameter details. No redundant sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, but the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, risk, parameters, and audit trail. It is complete for a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter: vm_ext_id from vm_list, snapshot_ext_id from snapshot_list, dry_run for preview, and target default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Delete a VM snapshot', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like snapshot_list, snapshot_create, and snapshot_restore.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises using dry_run=True to preview before actual deletion, providing clear usage guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but clearly states the destructive nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly marks the operation as [READ], explains pagination behavior via returned/limit/truncated fields, and describes the effect of the limit parameter. Given no annotations, this is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph with clear front-loading: first line states purpose and returned fields, followed by concise bullet-like explanations for each parameter. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 simple parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return behavior thoroughly. It mentions the returned fields and truncation, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates: it gives examples for status (RUNNING, SUCCEEDED, FAILED), explains limit's default and reporting behavior, and clarifies target as a config-based parameter. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists tasks from Prism Central with specific fields (extId, operation, status, %complete, entity). It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides optional filters (status, limit, target) with examples and explains the default limit and truncation behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear for task listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the operation is destructive, not undoable, tagged risk=high, requires audit tier 'review', and that the dry_run enforces the same precheck requirement. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is comprehensive and well-structured, starting with a clear summary, followed by behavioral notes, and an Args section. While every sentence adds value, it is slightly verbose but justified given the complexity and risk of the operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, dependency on lcm_precheck, and audit requirements, the description is highly complete. It covers preconditions, dry-run behavior, parameter sources, and safety notes. No output schema is needed for a mutation tool, and the description suffices for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the tool description provides detailed explanations for all 5 parameters. It adds meaning beyond schema types: e.g., how to obtain cluster_ext_id from cluster_list, entity_ext_ids from lcm_inventory, precheck_task_ext_id from lcm_precheck, and the purpose of dry_run and target.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with '[WRITE][risk=high] Perform an LCM firmware/software update', clearly specifying the verb ('update'), resource ('LCM firmware/software'), and risk level. It distinguishes from sibling 'lcm_precheck' by explicitly requiring a precheck task ID before proceeding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: run lcm_precheck first and pass the returned taskExtId. It also explains that dry_run=True gives a preview without updating, and emphasizes that the update is refused without a successful precheck. It covers destructive nature, audit requirements, and optional parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It clearly labels the tool as '[WRITE][risk=high]' and 'Destructive', details the audit trail capture of prior capacity/RF, and explains the dry_run safety mechanism. This fully discloses the tool's impact and side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with a summary line, risk note, audit info, and an Args section. It is concise given the amount of critical information, though the audit detail could be slightly trimmed. Overall, it earns its sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything needed: purpose, behavior, parameter semantics, and audit context. It covers the essentials of a destructive delete operation, making it self-contained and complete for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: ext_id is defined as from storage_container_list, dry_run as a preview mode, and target as an optional Prism Central name. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Delete a storage container' and notes 'Destructive', clearly identifying the verb and resource. Compared to siblings like storage_container_list, storage_container_create, and storage_container_update, this tool's deletion purpose is distinct and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description strongly advises 'pass dry_run=True first' to preview deletion, providing a clear safety guideline. It also explains the high-risk audit requirement, helping the agent decide when caution is needed. While sibling alternatives are not explicitly listed, the dry_run recommendation effectively guides safe usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses the read-only nature via [READ] tag and explains the pagination behavior (returned, limit, truncated). This sufficiently informs the agent of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and subsequent sentences add necessary detail without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with no output schema, the description provides all needed context: the returned fields, pagination, and target parameter. No gaps in completeness for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: limit (max rows, default 500, pagination info) and target (config target name). This compensates for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List registered clusters' with specific fields (extId, name, AOS version, hypervisors, nodes), and the [READ] prefix distinguishes it from mutation tools. It is differentiated from siblings like snapshot_list or vm_list by focusing on clusters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Call this first — most other tools need a clusterExtId from here,' providing clear usage context and prerequisites. It also explains the limit parameter's role in pagination.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it's a read operation, explains the truncated measurement (one extra row fetched), and details the effectVerified field's implications. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections, using markdown for readability. Every sentence serves a purpose, from the initial [READ] tag to the parameter explanations. It is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description comprehensively explains return fields (original tool, inverse tool, human note, effectVerified) and behavioral nuances (truncated, effectVerified handling). It leaves no gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: limit (max rows, default 50, re-run when truncated) and target (unused, for CLI uniformity). It adds complete meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it lists recorded, not-yet-applied undo tokens (most recent first), using a clear [READ] tag. It distinguishes itself from siblings like undo_apply and other list tools by specifically detailing its output structure.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance: use the returned undoId with undo_apply, re-run with a higher limit when truncated is true, and check live state before applying when effectVerified is false. It also notes that target is unused.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Nutanix-AIops MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AIops-tools/Nutanix-AIops/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AIops-tools/Nutanix-AIops)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Nutanix-AIops MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AIops-tools/Nutanix-AIops/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AIops-tools/Nutanix-AIops)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AIops-tools/Nutanix-AIops'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server