get_remaining_capacity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds rich behavioral context: it explains the return structure (group-level capacity_remaining_pct, per-dimension remaining_value with units), the data source (OnlineCapacityAnalytics demand model), and the warm-up behavior (Values are None while capacity analytics warm up). No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with a leading [READ] tag, a clear purpose statement, a return summary, an edge-case note, and alternative tool pointers, followed by a concise Args section. Every sentence contributes value, and the information is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (group-level percentage and per-dimension remaining values with units) and covers important context (None during warm-up, possible resource types). It also provides enough guidance for a moderate-complexity tool with two parameters, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 fully compensates by explaining both parameters in an Args section: resource_id is a UUID for ClusterComputeResource or HostSystem from list_resources, and target is an Aria target name from config with a default when omitted. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 a specific verb+resource ('Get remaining capacity headroom for a cluster or host') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_capacity_overview and get_time_remaining for alternative views. This clearly defines what the tool does and how it differs.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance by stating 'Use get_capacity_overview for the combined view, or get_time_remaining for projected days-until-full.' It also notes that values are None while analytics warm up, implying users should wait or avoid relying on it during that period. This fully orients the agent on appropriate usage.

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