vsan_efficiency

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

The description discloses behaviors beyond the annotations: it reads via the vSAN Management SDK, returns null with a message instead of a fabricated false when config is absent, and only errors if the cluster name is not found. It also declares 'No side effects,' reinforcing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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 detailed yet each sentence adds value: it covers return format, SDK details, edge-case behavior, error handling, alternatives, and limitations. The structure is logical with a summary paragraph, notes, and args, making it easy to scan.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains the return dict fields and the null behavior. It also covers error conditions and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools, making it complete for an AI agent to decide on 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: it explains cluster_name is 'exactly as shown in vCenter (case-sensitive)' and errors if not found, even directing how to get cluster names. The target parameter is described only as 'Optional vCenter/ESXi target name from config,' which is somewhat thin but acceptable.

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 the tool's function: 'Get vSAN data-efficiency (deduplication + compression) status for a cluster.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('vSAN data-efficiency status'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing 'Use vsan_capacity for space usage and vsan_health for disk-group layout.'

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 guidance is provided: 'Use vsan_capacity for space usage and vsan_health for disk-group layout' directly points to alternatives. It also states exclusions, such as 'vSAN Global Deduplication and vSAN-to-vSAN replication are NOT exposed here' and advises using the UI for those.

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