esxi_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The clause '不把 SDK schema 当作实测支持' adds a genuine behavioral caveat: results reflect the live host, not the SDK schema. That is useful but thin, and return shape is left to the output schema.

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?

A single semicolon-joined run-on whose head is a catalog of things rather than an action. The one behavioral caveat is buried after the list instead of front-loaded, so the reader must parse the whole string to learn what the tool actually does.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no prose. But a capability-discovery tool in a 50-sibling namespace must at minimum state that it returns live host ground truth and when to prefer it over schema tools; this description leaves callers unable to route themselves 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and it correctly does not invent parameter guidance.

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 is a run-on list of nouns (actual host version, license, discoverable managers, tool operation catalog, deployment switches) rather than a verb+resource statement. It never says what the tool does — read, return, or enumerate — though the name and readOnly annotation imply a capability query. It also fails to distinguish itself from neighbors like esxi_api_schema or esxi_resource_schema.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. With 50+ siblings including esxi_api_schema and esxi_resource_schema, this is the single most important missing piece and it is absent.

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