get_cross_vcenter_attention

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

Annotations already declare safe read/idempotent/open-world behavior, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: graceful degradation with the unreachable list, guarantee that unreachable targets never count as healthy (totals.worst_status floor), identity-based dedup rules, point-in-time (no trending), and the fact it returns a rollup rather than the list envelope.

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-loads the core question and the 'start here' decision, then layers degradation, dedup, and drill-in guidance in a logical order. It is dense but every block carries information; minor verbosity from the backtick field references keeps it from a 5.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries return-shape responsibility and does so — explaining top_issues, the per-target rollup, unreachable, also_seen_via, and the totals breakdown. For a multi-target aggregation tool this is complete enough 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 100%, so both parameters (top_n, cluster_filter) are fully documented in the schema. The description explains the top_issues return field that top_n caps but adds no syntax or format detail 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 and resource — rolls every configured target's cluster-health summary into one globally ranked top_issues list — and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling get_cluster_health_summary. An agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear 'start here when the estate has more than one vCenter', names the alternative it replaces ('use this instead of calling get_cluster_health_summary once per target'), and routes follow-up work to investigate_vm/host/datastore. When-to-use, alternative, and drill-in path are all explicit.

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