vro_find_actions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful return-shape information (fqn module/name and id) but says nothing about result ordering, truncation, or how limit interacts with results.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its matching semantics, followed by the return fields. No filler; only the bare return clause is slightly clipped.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value context; it names the returned fields but not the surrounding structure (list, ordering, whether matches are exhaustive within limit). Adequate for a simple search tool, but incomplete on result behavior.

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 must compensate. It explains the semantics of 'query' (partial module or name match) with examples, which is genuinely helpful, but 'limit' is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Find Orchestrator actions by partial module or name', with concrete query examples ('getAllVMs', 'com.vmware.library.vc'). It is clear this is the search/fuzzy-match entry point, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like vro_get_action or vro_api_search.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as vro_get_action or vro_api_search. The phrase 'by partial module or name' implies fuzzy lookup, but the agent must infer that this is the discovery step preceding get/run calls.

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