scan_target

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations. It clarifies the readOnlyHint by specifying 'Makes read-only vCenter API calls (inventory collection only — never modifies VMware infrastructure)' and explicitly discloses local writes to the twin DB. It also notes that the scan may take minutes on large inventories. This is valuable, non-obvious information that helps the agent understand side effects and performance.

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 appropriately sized and efficiently structured. It frontloads the readonly indicator and core action, then systematically covers parameters, behavior, return value, and caveats. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy or fluff. The density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 description is complete for the tool's complexity. It covers the tool's side effects (local DB writes), return format (summary counts), relationships to sibling tools, performance considerations, and parameter semantics. With no output schema present, the description adequately fills the gap by describing the return structure. The annotations also cover idempotency and destructiveness.

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?

Although the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: 'target (required string): a vCenter target name as configured in vmware-aiops' and 'baseline (optional string, default ...): a baseline id from list_baselines.' It provides the source/format for each parameter, compensating completely 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run a compliance scan of a vCenter target against a baseline and persist results locally.' It clearly identifies the tool's core function and scope (compliance scan, local persistence). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by referencing list_violations and list_drift_events for inspecting details, making the purpose clear and differentiated.

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 usage context: it states the required target as a configured name in vmware-aiops and the optional baseline defaulting to a specific baseline ID. It also guides follow-up actions by saying 'inspect details via list_violations and list_drift_events,' effectively directing the agent to alternative/companion tools. This satisfies the requirement for when to use vs. alternatives.

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