esxi_guest_process

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond them: explicit in-OS program path and authentication are required, start returns a PID, and there is no automatic ESXi-shell substitution. The destructive nature of terminate is not elaborated, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Compact, front-loaded two-clause statement with essentially no wasted words, leading with the start/terminate action and following with the exitCode hand-off and shell caveat.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 params, a nested authentication object, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input contract (dry_run defaulting to true, action semantics, path vs arguments) is left undocumented.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only alludes conceptually to program path and authentication; fields like dry_run, action, arguments, environment, working_directory and expected_name are left entirely to the schema (which has no descriptions of its own).

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?

States a specific verb+resource (start/terminate a guest process) and names the sibling (process_status) it hands off to for exitCode, so an agent can distinguish it from esxi_guest_process_status and esxi_shell. Clear overall, though terse and partly in a mixed language register.

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?

Gives actionable context: start then use process_status to read exitCode, and clarifies it will NOT silently fall back to the ESXi shell. This tells the agent when and how to use it versus the shell-based sibling, though no explicit when-not-exclusions are given.

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