list_datastore_clusters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that results are scoped to a host or cluster and that this feeds provisioning, but says nothing about pagination or result size. With annotations and an output schema carrying most of the load, a 3 is apt.

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: the first identifies the resource and its scope, the second states the downstream use. Nothing is redundant and the essential scope 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 read-only list tool with an output schema, full parameter coverage, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: why the agent would call this and what to do with the returned id.

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 100% and both parameters document their source tools (list_virtual_centers, list_hosts_or_clusters). The description adds no input-parameter detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List datastore clusters') and disambiguates from the near-name sibling list_datastores by glossing the resource as 'Storage DRS pods'. An agent can distinguish this from listing plain datastores without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent downstream: the returned datastore_cluster_id feeds create_desktop_pool or create_rdsh_farm provisioning_settings when using Storage DRS. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use rule (e.g., when plain datastores suffice).

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