cluster_utilization

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bracketed '[READ]' tag is largely redundant. The description does add one genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations: the values are 'point-in-time' rather than historical or averaged, which affects interpretation. It does not disclose required permissions, metric units, or sampling window.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by a tidy Args block; no filler sentences. The '[READ]' prefix duplicates what the readOnlyHint annotation already states, a minor redundancy. Overall appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description is responsible for signalling the return shape, and it does by naming the four metric families (CPU, memory, storage, IOPS) plus their point-in-time nature. For a read-only tool with two well-documented parameters, little is missing apart from units or sampling cadence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does: cluster_ext_id is explained as 'Cluster extId as returned by cluster_list' (a useful provenance pointer unavailable in the schema), and target is described as a Prism Central target name from config with the omission default. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb+resource combination — point-in-time CPU/memory/storage/IOPS utilization for a cluster — so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It is clearly distinct from siblings like snapshot_list or task_list, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest sibling, cluster_health, or capacity_runway. Clear but no sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement of when to prefer this over cluster_health, capacity_runway (which implies trend/capacity analysis), or host_list. The 'point-in-time' phrasing hints at scope but does not tell the agent which question this tool answers versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites beyond the target parameter note.

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