datastore_investigation_bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description reinforces this with '[READ]' and 'read-only'. The description adds valuable behavioral guidance beyond annotations: it delegates to the vmware-monitor library, should not be dumped raw, and is point-in-time. No contradiction exists.

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 tightly structured: a short headline, a clear bullet-like list of correlated data, a behavioral note, and a usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what the bundle contains: capacity, free space, accessibility, hosts, VM rollups, alarms, and an event timeline. Combined with the usage trigger and read-only caveat, an agent has enough context to invoke 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%, and the schema already documents datastore_name with exact-match semantics, hours as an event-timeline look-back window, and target as an optional vCenter/ESXi selection. The description adds only a high-level 'point-in-time' hint rather than parameter-specific details, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb/resource combination: it 'correlates' a datastore's capacity, free space, accessibility, mounting hosts, backed VMs, alarms, and event timeline. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling investigation bundles (vm_investigation_bundle, host_investigation_bundle) and individual datastore browsing tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'AFTER cluster_health_summary flags storage pressure.' It also gives a when-not signal by noting that per-datastore latency is a separate perf report. It does not name a specific sibling tool for that alternative, so it stops short of a full routing matrix.

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