vcf_targets

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (name, product, address, auth scheme, operation count, reachability) and emphasizing the importance of the target name. It does not contradict 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose statement, a short 'Start here' directive, a list of return fields, and a note about the target name's role in other tools. Every sentence earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple listing tool, the description covers the main purpose, the content of the output, and how to use the results with sibling tools. The one gap is the lack of explanation for the check_reachability parameter, but the overall guidance is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 one parameter, check_reachability, with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. The parameter name alone is insufficient to explain its effect, especially since the description mentions reachability only in the return list, not tying it back to the parameter.

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: 'List every VCF appliance this server can talk to.' It uses a specific verb (list), a specific resource (VCF appliance), and immediately distinguishes this tool as the entry point by saying 'Start here' and noting that the target name is expected by other tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Start here.' It also explains that the returned target name is what every other tool expects, which tells the agent to use this tool first to get identifiers for subsequent operations. This is strong contextual guidance, even without naming alternatives explicitly.

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