esxi_api_schema

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read in a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding a non-obvious behavioral caveat: the SDK schema is authoritative for signatures but does not guarantee the running ESXi host supports a given method — a real gotcha an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Two compact sentences with the capability statement front-loaded and the caveat trailing. No filler, though the caveat could be tied to an action rather than stated abstractly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, with zero schema coverage the unexplained depth parameter and the lack of routing versus esxi_api_get / esxi_resource_schema leave gaps for a three-tool schema-inspection family.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It loosely maps to type_name and method ('types... methods, parameters') but says nothing about the 'depth' parameter, whose recursion depth default of 2 is the least self-explanatory field. Undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific resource (official SDK schema) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: types, properties, methods, parameters and return types. This distinguishes it from siblings like esxi_api_invoke or esxi_resource_schema by implication, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent is expected to consult this before invoking an SDK call — and the caveat that 'SDK methods may still not be supported by the current ESXi' warns about reliability rather than telling when to prefer this over esxi_api_get or esxi_resource_schema. No explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is given.

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