vsphere_about

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to restate them. It adds value by specifying the exact return data, especially the account and permission mode, and by framing the tool as a prerequisite check for write operations, which enriches the behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second explains the return fields and usage. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy with the annotations.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields and provides clear usage context. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to call it, making it complete for its simple, introspective function.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space with 100% coverage. There are no parameter details to elaborate, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 clear verb ('Identify') and specifies the resource ('connected vSphere endpoint'), then enumerates the exact return fields (product name, version, API version, account, permission mode). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that manage or list vSphere objects.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first' to determine whether write operations are allowed, which is a strong usage directive. It doesn't name alternative tools, but given this tool's unique role as an endpoint/interrogation tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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