list_vm_folders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description only states that it lists folders and mentions the use case. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, performance, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a listing tool with no annotation hints, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action and includes the purpose. It earns points for being efficient, though it could benefit from a little more detail without becoming verbose.

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 with only two parameters and an output schema (which explains return structure), the description is mostly adequate. However, since there are no annotations, and the tool is part of a large family of listing tools, the description lacks guidance on behavior (e.g., read-only guarantee, whether lists are flat or hierarchical). The output schema exists, so that relieves some pressure, but the missing behavioral info holds it back.

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%, so both parameters are documented by the schema. The description does not add much beyond rephrasing the purpose, but the schema fully covers parameter meaningtons. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline is 3, and the description adds slightly more context about the purpose (pool/farm configuration), earning a 4.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List VM folders in a vCenter datacenter' and includes the purpose 'for use in pool/farm configuration.' It is specific enough to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it differs from.

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 implies usage context: it is relevant when configuring pools or farms, and it requires a vCenter and datacenter. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_virtual_centers or list_base_vms, so the agent must infer from the naming.

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