find_aging_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds real behavioral context: the exact rollup return shape ({total_snapshots, old_snapshots, vms_with_snapshots, threshold_days, snapshots[], hint}), the caveat that est_size_mb is only a lower bound because delta-disk growth isn't separable per-snapshot via the API, and an explicit scope boundary that deletion lives in vmware-aiops.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope in the first clause, then usage routing, then the return contract, then the caveat. No sentence is filler; the bracketed [READ] tag signals safety up front.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself and does so concretely, including per-row fields and the size-estimate limitation. Combined with rich annotations, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so limit/target/only_old/age_threshold_days are already fully documented. The description references threshold_days in the return shape but adds no parameter syntax, formats, or defaults beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Sweep ALL VMs for snapshots and flag old / sprawling ones.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling list_vm_snapshots by naming that tool as the single-VM alternative.

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 routing guidance: 'Use this for fleet-wide snapshot sprawl; prefer list_vm_snapshots when you only care about one VM.' The when-to-use and the named alternative are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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