vro_server_info

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

With only readOnlyHint declared, the description adds real behavioral context: it performs a login, and it reports the server's about info, auth mode, and loaded spec. The 'logs in' detail is worth disclosing since a session handshake is more than a pure read, though it is not destructive enough to contradict readOnlyHint.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and returns, the second delivers the single most actionable instruction ('call this first if anything fails'). No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming the returned payload (about info, auth mode, API spec), and there are no parameters to document. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly avoids inventing input semantics.

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 ('Check connectivity') plus resource ('VCF Operations Orchestrator') and enumerates exactly what is returned: /about info, auth mode, loaded API spec. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (api_search, find_workflows, run_workflow, etc.), none of which is a connectivity/diagnostic probe.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: 'Call this first if anything fails,' which tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not condition, so it falls just under the top band.

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