cross_vcenter_attention

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important runtime behavior: it degrades gracefully when a target is unreachable, lists unreachable targets separately, aggregates remaining results, and is point-in-time. It also names the underlying library and confirms read-only behavior, giving an agent confidence in side-effect safety.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core value proposition and then providing behavior, fallback semantics, and follow-up guidance. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return shape: a globally ranked top_issues list tagged by vcenter, a per-target rollup, and an unreachable list. It also covers failure behavior, read-only safety, point-in-time semantics, and a suggested drill-in path, making it complete for a read-only aggregation tool.

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%, and both parameters (top_n and cluster_filter) are already clearly documented in the schema. The tool description adds context about ranking and aggregation but does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific purpose: aggregate attention-worthy issues across every configured vCenter into one ranked list. It explicitly names the underlying operation (runs cluster_health_summary against every target) and distinguishes itself from single-target tools by emphasizing the cross-vCenter scope.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: as the first estate-wide triage step, and it explicitly suggests following up with vm_investigation_bundle for deeper drill-in. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it directly to cluster_health_summary as an alternative, but the 'across EVERY configured vCenter' scope makes the usage context unambiguous.

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