browse_datastore

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the list envelope ('items' one row per file, 'returned'/'total'/'truncated' completeness) and guarantees that 'Every match in the searched folders is returned, so truncated is always false.' This is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: core action, usage guidance with alternatives, and return-envelope behavior. The '[READ]' prefix is slightly redundant with annotations but aids quick scanning and does not inflate the length. No wasted words.

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 compensates by explaining the response structure and the truncation guarantee. It also provides workflow context and names the alternative tool, making the definition self-sufficient for correct selection and invocation. Minor details like recursion behavior are not essential for this directory-browsing use case.

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 100%, so all four parameters (path, target, pattern, datastore_name) are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond contextual hints about common file types (OVA/ISO/VMDK), so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse files in a vSphere datastore directory.' It explicitly differentiates from related siblings by stating it is for finding OVA/ISO/VMDK paths before deploy_vm_from_ova or attach_iso_to_vm, and that scan_datastore_images is the alternative for estate-wide sweeps. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to its siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to find OVA/ISO/VMDK paths before calling deploy_vm_from_ova or attach_iso_to_vm; for an estate-wide image sweep use scan_datastore_images.' It names the specific alternatives and the conditions that select them, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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