vcenter_deployment_size

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the return shape, that available:False means a 503 or pre-9.1 vCenter, that this is not a failure, and that the endpoint is 9.1-only. This is exactly the kind of context that helps an agent reason about unexpected results.

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 with labeled sections for usage, return value, and gotchas. Every sentence adds meaningful context, and the key purpose is front-loaded. There is no wasted text.

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 appropriately explains the return shape and failure semantics. It also covers version constraints and operational edge cases (503, older vCenter), making it fully sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret results 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?

The single optional parameter `target` is already fully described in the schema as 'vCenter target from config (default if omitted),' giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states that the tool reads the vCenter appliance's current deployment size class, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes its capacity-planning purpose from inventory/perf tools, helping an agent differentiate it from siblings.

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 an explicit 'When to use' section explaining it is for reading deployment size for capacity planning and that this is not covered by inventory/perf tools. It does not name specific alternative tools or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.

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