overview

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior: it is best-effort, fans out over other read operations, and a failing collection reports an error block rather than blanking the rest. That partial-failure semantics is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, though return format/pagination is not addressed.

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 [READ] tag and a one-line summary, then scoping and failure semantics, then args. Efficient overall, though the bracketed [READ] prefix duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 single-parameter fan-out read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, failure behavior, and the one parameter. The absence of any note on payload structure or size is a minor gap but not blocking.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only gives a title for target with no description. The description compensates by explaining target is a Xen Orchestra target name from config and that omitting it uses the default. Since there is only 1 optional parameter, this is adequate, but no format or valid-value guidance is added.

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: 'One-shot health summary: pools, hosts, VMs, SRs, recent backups.' The resource scope is enumerated precisely, and it is clearly distinguished from siblings like pool_list, host_list, vm_list which each cover one resource.

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?

'Start any triage here' gives an explicit entry point, and it names the relationship to alternatives by explaining it fans out over the other read ops. An agent knows when to pick this over the individual list tools.

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