esxi_esxcli_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the SSH backend is optional, the query whitelist is enforced server-side, and caller-supplied read_only claims are ignored. That whitelist enforcement detail is exactly the kind of behavioral trait annotations cannot express.

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 core constraint (read-only, server-judged whitelist) front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence about read_only is arguably confusing given no such parameter exists.

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 described, but with 0% schema coverage the three undocumented parameters leave a substantial gap, and the description offers no differentiation from the sibling esxi_esxcli tool. For a query tool whose 'arguments' array is the primary interface, the definition is under-specified.

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 must carry parameter meaning, but it says nothing about the three parameters (timeout, arguments, max_output_bytes). Worse, it discusses read_only, which is not even a parameter of this tool, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states it is a fixed read-only ESXCLI query with an optional SSH backend, which is a recognizable verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling esxi_esxcli tool, and it never explains what the query targets or what 'arguments' represent, so the agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus esxi_esxcli, esxi_shell, or the various esxi_*_manage tools. The only conditional information is the server-side whitelist, which is a safety constraint rather than usage direction.

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