cluster_health_summary

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds value beyond them: it delegates to vmware-monitor, returns a snapshot without trending, ranks top_issues worst-first, and reveals the response shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core question ('is anything on fire?'), then organizes behavior, usage, and return format in tight paragraphs. Every sentence adds information, and the return-field ordering guidance earns its place.

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 present, the description compensates by documenting the return object and which fields to lead with. It also names sibling drill-down tools, explains status semantics, and clarifies the point-in-time nature — leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the input schema already documents all four parameters well. The description adds useful context about top_issues and return ordering but doesn't materially enrich parameter meaning beyond the 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?

Description names a specific verb and resource ('health rollup for every cluster') and defines the artifact precisely: statuses per cluster plus a ranked top_issues list. It also distinguishes itself from deeper investigation tools by explicitly positioning this as the fast cross-cluster triage view.

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 instructs the agent to 'Use it FIRST for a cross-cluster glance, then drill in with vm_investigation_bundle or host_investigation_bundle.' It also sets expectations with 'Point-in-time — no trending,' so the agent knows not to use it for temporal analysis.

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