vcenter_deployment_size

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, explaining the exact return shape ({available, note, fields}), the meaning of available: False (vCenter 503, nothing crashed), and the 9.1-only endpoint behavior with older vCenters returning 404. This gives the agent essential runtime context and failure semantics.

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 compact, well-structured into 'When to use,' 'What it returns,' and 'Gotchas.' Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most important information (what it reads, when to use it) appears first 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all relevant context: purpose, use case, return format, failure semantics, API version constraints, and verification status. An agent has everything needed to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter 'target' with a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since the schema already covers it; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb and resource: '[READ] vCenter appliance deployment size,' and further specifies it reads current and target deployment size class. It also distinguishes itself from sibling inventory/perf tools by stating this is capacity-planning context they do not cover.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states the intended use case: reading vCenter deployment size class for capacity planning. It also notes that inventory/perf tools do not cover this context, providing implicit guidance on alternatives, though it does not explicitly name a specific sibling to use instead.

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