get_resource_pool

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is too brief to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects, permissions). The description only says 'Get resource pool details' which implies read-only but offers no further context.

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 extremely short (3 words). While concise, it is under-specified and fails to provide essential information. It does not earn its place as it adds no value beyond the name.

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 there is an output schema (signal: has output schema=true), the description might rely on that for return value details. However, with two parameters and no description, the tool definition is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke without additional knowledge.

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% (no descriptions for parameters), and the tool description does not explain the parameters (resource_pool, vcenter_name). Their meanings, formats, or required values are not clarified.

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 action (Get) and resource (resource pool details). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_resource_pools, which might also provide details. A 4 is appropriate because it's clear but lacks specificity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., list_resource_pools for listing all, or get_resource_pool for a single one). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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