esxi_operation_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the persisted operation history will not expose passwords or signed URLs, which is a useful output-security disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 core purpose and appends the security caveat. No filler, nothing redundant.

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 structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a history/listing tool the description omits sibling differentiation and the meaning of its one parameter, leaving gaps an agent would otherwise need to guess.

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?

One parameter (limit) exists with 0% schema description coverage and only a default value of 50. The description says nothing about it, so neither the schema nor the description explains what limit controls (count, pagination size, etc.).

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 (查询/query) and resource (持久化操作清单/persisted operation list) scoped to the current host/account. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling esxi_operation_status, which appears to occupy overlapping territory.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related esxi_operation_status or esxi_get_task alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is preferable.

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