storage_rescan

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false), the description adds rich behavioral context: 'Non-destructive: only triggers device and VMFS discovery (deletes nothing), but it is I/O-visible on the host and may take a minute or two with many paths. Audit-logged to ~/.vmware/audit.db. Returns a confirmation string; errors include remediation hints.' This discloses side effects, performance impact, auditing, and error handling, which annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with purpose and organized into purposeful paragraphs: use case, safety/behavior, return value, and parameter details. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or fluff; the length is justified by the complexity of the operation.

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?

The description covers all key aspects: purpose, when to use, side effects, duration, audit logging, return type, error hints, and complete parameter semantics. Despite not showing the output schema, the description mentions the return format ('confirmation string'), making the tool fully understandable for an agent to select and 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 0%, but the description compensates fully with an Args section explaining all three parameters: host_name (required, errors if not found), dry_run (preview behavior), and target (optional name from config). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare type/default information in the schema.

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 '[WRITE] Rescan all HBAs and VMFS volumes on an ESXi host to discover newly presented LUNs and datastores,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope statement. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like storage_iscsi_add_target by focusing on rescanning storage hardware rather than managing iSCSI targets.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use this when a storage array presents new LUNs, or after out-of-band SAN changes.' It also names alternatives and exclusions: 'Not needed after storage_iscsi_add_target / storage_iscsi_remove_target — those rescan automatically.' This fully addresses when and when-not to use the tool.

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