esxi_dependencies

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

Annotations already establish the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add scope. It does add useful scope (three dependency domains), but the '管理 VMkernel 连接' wording implies mutation and is never reconciled with the read-only annotations, which introduces doubt rather than clarity.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource (VM dependency domains) before the purpose clause, with no filler. The only inefficiency is the ambiguous VMkernel clause, which spends words without adding usable meaning.

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?

With zero parameters, rich annotations, and a published output schema, the description need not explain return values, so the baseline burden is low. It still leaves the read-vs-manage ambiguity unresolved, which is the one thing an agent would most want clarified before calling it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level semantics are required or missing.

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 recognizable resource (VM dependencies across network/storage/file) and a use case (review before shared-resource changes), so an agent can broadly tell what it returns. However there is no clear action verb, and the trailing clause about '管理 VMkernel 连接' (managing VMkernel connections) blurs whether this reports dependencies or performs connection administration, leaving the purpose partially ambiguous.

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 phrase '供共享资源变更前审查' gives a genuine when-to-use condition: invoke this before modifying shared resources. There is no when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as esxi_host_summary, esxi_list_networks, or esxi_list_datastores, so the routing logic is only implied.

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