vsphere_list_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the sort order (newest first) and elaborates on the scope of events (audit trail, examples of event types). It does not disclose return format details, but given the output schema exists and the tool is a simple read-only list, this level is adequate.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief context paragraph, and a concise parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the parameter explanations are terse yet complete.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only query with no required parameters. The description covers the purpose, typical use cases, and all parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. Sibling context further disambiguates. No critical gaps are apparent for effective selection and invocation.

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 description explicitly explains every parameter in a numbered Args list: entity (restrict to object and children), entity_type (kind of object), hours (lookback), categories (filter by info/warning/error/user), and limit (max events). This fully compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage. The enum values for entity_type and categories are also enumerated, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare property types.

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 'List recent vSphere events, newest first,' which clearly identifies a specific verb+resource (list events) and adds ordering (newest first). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like vsphere_list_tasks (tasks vs events) and vsphere_list_alarms (alarms vs events) by providing concrete examples of event types (logins, configuration changes, HA actions, alarm transitions, hardware problems).

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool by stating it represents the environment's audit trail and enumerating event categories. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use vsphere_list_tasks instead), but the context signals (sibling names and the audit-trail framing) make the primary use case obvious. No explicit 'when not to use' guidance is given.

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