vm_health_rca

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is a READ operation and describes what it flags, but lacks details on return format, pagination, or side effects. The '[READ]' prefix is helpful, but more behavioral context 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.

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

The description is concise, starting with a clear summary tag and listing key findings. It then presents parameters in a docstring style. Every sentence adds value, though the 'cause + action per finding' phrase could be expanded slightly for clarity.

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?

The description adequately covers tool scope and parameters but does not describe the output format, which is missing since no output schema exists. For a health RCA tool, the agent would benefit from knowing the structure of findings (e.g., list of objects with cause and action).

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%, so the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: vm_id as optional VM UUID to analyze one VM, and target as optional Xen Orchestra target name. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool is for VM health root-cause analysis, listing specific issues flagged (halted, paused, no guest tools, CPU/memory pressure) and indicating it can analyze one VM or the whole fleet. This distinguishes it from siblings like backup_failure_rca.

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

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

The description explains when to use the tool (for VM health issues) and that it can target a specific VM or all VMs. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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