vcf_search_api

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are ranked and include method, full path, summary, and operationId. It also explains the include_deprecated behavior, providing useful details beyond annotations.

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 well-structured: a brief statement of purpose and scale, followed by practical usage guidance, then a clear list of argument descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and the examples ('commission hosts', 'rotate passwords') make the tool's intent immediately understandable without unnecessary verbosity.

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 there is no output schema, the description explains what results contain (method, path, summary, operationId) and how they are ordered (ranked). It covers all parameters, provides context for the deprecated filter, and gives performance expectations (~7,700 operations). The description is complete for this search tool's complexity.

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 carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It explicitly describes all five parameters: query, target (with appliance list), method (HTTP verbs), limit (default 25), and include_deprecated (VCF 9.1 deprecation). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find VCF API operations by intent, across ~7,700 indexed operations.' It uses a specific verb (find) and resource (VCF API operations), and distinguishes itself from siblings like vcf_describe_api and vcf_call by focusing on search/discovery rather than describing or executing specific operations.

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 description provides clear usage context: 'Search the way you would describe the task... rather than guessing a path.' It advises on using the target parameter when the appliance is known. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for related tasks, stopping short of a full when/when-not specification.

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