vcf_inventory

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses two important behaviors: unreachable appliances are reported inline instead of failing the whole snapshot, and per_section_limit controls summarization. It also reveals that targets defaults to 'all with a recipe.' These details materially affect how the agent interprets the result, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a punchy summary, followed by a clarifying sentence on scope, a behavioral note, and a short Args list. Every sentence adds value—none are tautological or redundant. It is compact while still covering purpose, behavior, and parameters.

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?

Given the tool's broad scope (inventory across multiple VCF components) and lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (domains, clusters, hosts, gateways, alerts), how sections work, and how failures are handled. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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 schema has no descriptions and 0% coverage, so the Args section carries the full burden. It explains 'targets' as a restriction to specific appliances with a default of all, and 'per_section_limit' as the item count before summarization. This gives clear, actionable meaning beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 opens with 'Snapshot the estate: domains, clusters, hosts, gateways, alerts,' providing a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the cross-system scope ('across SDDC Manager, vCenter, NSX and Operations') and positions it as a one-call overview tool, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like vcf_targets or vcf_search_api.

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 'One call that answers "what have I got?"' clearly establishes the intended use case for high-level estate snapshots. It also explains behavior on unreachable appliances, which sets expectations in failure scenarios. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to avoid this tool, so it is a clear context without explicit exclusions.

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