esxi_host_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it retrieves information, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, or mention any prerequisites, permissions, or lack of side effects. This is a minimal indicator of safety.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and the key fields. No unnecessary words are used.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists the main data returned (CPU, memory, version), but does not mention any limitations, prerequisites, or additional behavioral context. It is adequate for a minimal tool but lacks depth.

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 schema already describes device_id as 'ESXi host device ID', and the description adds no further parameter context. With 100% schema_description_coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'ESXi host information' and enumerates the exact data returned (CPU, memory, version). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like esxi_list_vms and esxi_get_vm, which target virtual machines rather than the host.

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 clearly implies the use case: when you need ESXi host details such as CPU, memory, or version. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Get' phrasing gives clear context for agent selection among the large sibling toolset.

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