cluster_last_apply_result

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the return shape, defensive reading behavior, the 'not found' teaching error for never-remediated clusters, and the 503 mid-patch retry semantics. It also notes endpoint/field verification against a live VCF 9.1 vCenter.

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 under clear headings, is front-loaded with the core read intent, and every sentence earns its place. It packs usage timing, return shape, error behavior, and a cross-tool pointer without unnecessary padding.

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 fully compensates by enumerating the return fields and expected error cases. It also covers when to retry, how to interpret the MoID, and the read-only nature, making it complete for an agent to call the tool effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that 'cluster' is the cluster MoID and pointing to list_all_clusters for discovery, which goes beyond the schema's 'Cluster MoID' text.

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-and-resource statement: it returns the result of the last vLCM remediation (apply) on one cluster via REST. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling cluster_patch_compliance by stating this is for the apply outcome, not current drift.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use after a patch/remediation to confirm the last apply succeeded and when it finished. It names the alternative cluster_patch_compliance and tells the agent exactly when to use that instead, so the agent can select correctly.

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