list_rightsizing_recommendations

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond this: warm-up returns None, per-VM API cost, pagination envelope with 'truncated' flag, and null total when API reports no size. These are non-obvious behaviors the agent must know.

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 bit long but well-structured: starts with a clear summary, provides warnings, return envelope info, and an Args block. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'One stats call per VM' could be merged into the performance warning). Overall it earns its length.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return envelope (items, returned, limit, total, truncated, hint) and the critical 'truncated' check. Combined with annotations, it covers purpose, usage, behavior, params, and return semantics. The tool is complex enough (pagination, warm-up, per-VM calls) that this completeness is necessary.

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 explain params. It does so in a dedicated 'Args' section, explaining resource_id as optional VM resource UUID scope, limit as 1-100 with default 50, and target as config-based. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'List VM rightsizing data — recommended CPU/memory size per VM.' It also specifies the data source (OnlineCapacityAnalytics recommendedSize metrics) and that it's a read operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resources or get_capacity_overview.

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 usage context: 'Compare against the VM's provisioned size to find over/under-provisioning', warns about warm-up time ('Values are None while capacity analytics warm up'), and advises on performance ('One stats call per VM — keep limit modest'). It also directs users to get UUIDs from list_resources. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, making it clear but not fully explicit.

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