get_cluster_cpu_memory_utilization_period_ws

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'Gets' utilization, implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or any side effects. The description is too brief for a tool handling potentially sensitive monitoring data without annotation support.

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 of 12 words, which is very concise. However, this conciseness sacrifices necessary detail, particularly regarding parameters and sibling differentiation. While front-loaded, it doesn't fully earn its place due to missing critical information.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, an output schema, and multiple closely related siblings, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details. The output schema exists but the description could still summarize return structure or error conditions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly relates to the 'days' parameter by mentioning a default of 5 days. The 'cluster' and 'vcenter_name' parameters are not explained at all. The description adds minimal semantic value 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 clearly states the tool retrieves time-bound cluster CPU and memory utilization via Web Services with a default of 5 days. It identifies the specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_cluster_cpu_memory_daily_rollup_ws or get_cluster_cpu_memory_utilization_window_ws, which could cause confusion as to which tool to use for a given time range.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or when not to use it. There are multiple similar tools for cluster CPU/memory utilization, yet no comparative context is given. The description lacks any usage conditions or exclusions.

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