get_nsx_manager_status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important behavior: the return shape is a single dict rather than the typical list envelope, and it explicitly states that only online nodes are listed, so a missing node means down. This is critical non-obvious context that helps an agent interpret results correctly.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and usage directive, and every sentence adds value. It includes return fields, a behavioral caveat, and a pointer to the next logical tool without any filler or repetition of schema details.

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 returned fields and explaining the meaning of missing nodes. It also provides the recommended invocation context and follow-up action. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and interpret this tool 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% for the single optional target parameter, so the schema already explains it adequately. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none is needed given one optional parameter with a clear default. This matches the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Get NSX Manager cluster status', specifying node health and control/management plane health. The '[READ]' prefix reinforces the operation's nature. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling status tools like get_edge_cluster_status or get_transport_node_status by targeting the manager cluster specifically.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Start any NSX health check here' and explains why: if the manager cluster is degraded, other readings are suspect. It also names a sibling tool, list_nsx_alarms, as the follow-up for actual firing alarms, giving a clear when-to-use and when-to-move-on path.

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