get_cluster_cpu_memory_utilization_window_ws

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or sampling methodology. The window and per-day behavior is mentioned but insufficient given no 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?

Single, well-structured sentence with no redundancy. Key information (purpose, window options, per-day flag) is front-loaded and concise.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (cluster required), but only window and per_day are mentioned. No output schema is provided in the input, but context says it exists. Still, the description leaves gaps on parameter semantics and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'window' parameter with examples and the 'per_day' boolean, but omits the required 'cluster' parameter and explains nothing about 'vcenter_name'. Partial coverage, leaving ambiguity.

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 it retrieves CPU/memory utilization for a cluster, specifying time windows and optional per-day averages. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_cluster_cpu_memory_daily_rollup_ws or get_cluster_cpu_memory_utilization_period_ws, which may cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description provides example window values but fails to mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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