salud_hardware

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the output prioritization behavior ('lists items not in green first'), which is real added context, but it never states that the call is read-only, nor whether it requires vCenter/ESXi credentials or how long a full sensor sweep takes.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed immediately by the most actionable behavior (non-green items first). No filler or repetition; the embedded line breaks are cosmetic only.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should do more to convey what comes back — e.g. whether each component returns a green/yellow/red verdict, thresholds, or error behavior when ESXi is unreachable. It covers scope and ordering but leaves the response shape largely unspecified.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance, and none is needed.

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 (ESXi hardware health) and enumerates the exact subsystems inspected: RAID/PERC disks, temperature sensors, fans, power supplies, memory and CPU. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like host_info (configuration) and performance (metrics), though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource — an agent can infer this is a read-only hardware diagnostic to run when investigating physical-layer issues. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus host_info, performance or diagnostico_completo, and no prerequisites or exclusions given.

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