vm_health_rca

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior via '[READ]', explains the ranking logic, supersession rules, and the meaning of 'Down VMs without HA are normal', which prevents misinterpretation. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only RCA tool this is adequate.

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

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

The description is structured with a leading summary, a severity explanation, and an args section. It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability. The front-loaded summary allows quick comprehension.

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?

For a tool with 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully explains the expected output (ranked findings, quoted signals) and the interpretation logic. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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

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

The description provides detailed semantics for all three parameters that the schema only lists as names. It explains ranges, defaults, and the effect of each (e.g., events_window_hours controls ignored events and counts them in eventsOutsideWindow). This is high-value beyond the schema, especially given the 0% schema description coverage.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('VM problems ranked worst first') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like storage_capacity_rca, host_health_rca, and engine_health_rca by scoping to VMs and providing a ranking. The '[READ]' prefix immediately signals a non-mutating operation.

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?

Explicitly names an alternative (storage_capacity_rca) for a specific scenario (storage I/O errors or full domain), and explains severity levels that guide when to investigate. It does not explicitly contrast with host_health_rca or engine_health_rca, but the VM-specific scope is clear, and the description implies its usage for VM health triage.

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