list_network_labels

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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: the semantic nature of the resource (port group vs distributed port group) and the downstream consumption pattern of the returned IDs. It omits pagination/filtering behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the second block is a compact JSON snippet showing exactly how the returned ID is consumed, which earns its space. Slightly dense, but no filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameter provenance is documented in the schema. Description covers purpose, scope and cross-tool integration; only minor gaps remain (e.g., behavior when no labels match).

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 already carry provenance hints (obtain from list_virtual_centers / list_hosts_or_clusters). The description only reinforces the host-or-cluster scoping already implied by the schema, adding no format or validity detail. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Starts with a specific verb ("List") plus resource ("network labels") and disambiguates the concept as "port groups / distributed port groups", scoped to "a host or cluster". An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_network_interface_cards or list_hosts_or_clusters without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the operational context well: the returned IDs feed the nics array of create_desktop_pool and create_rdsh_farm, which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. It does not state exclusions or name an alternative, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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