get_desktop_pool_utilization

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the "[READ]" tag adds nothing; the real value is disclosing that results are sorted by utilization and enumerating the returned counters. No auth, rate-limit, or pagination behavior is described, but for a small read-only aggregate there is little else to disclose.

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?

Two short lines with zero filler: the returned metrics are front-loaded in line one and the routing hint is second. Every clause earns its place.

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 compensates by naming the exact fields returned and their ordering, which is precisely what an agent needs to interpret the response. Nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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 schema carries 100% description coverage for the single optional `target` parameter (config.yaml target, omit for default), so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the incidental --pool drill-down hint.

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?

States a specific resource (desktop pool) and precise scope (per-pool capacity: total/available/in-use/error machines and utilization %), which cleanly separates it from list_desktop_pools and get_desktop_pool. The framing as the "am I running out of desktops?" view makes the output semantics immediately legible.

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?

Gives a clear triggering intent ("am I running out of desktops?") and explicitly routes the agent to the drill-down alternative (list_vdi_machines --pool). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over adjacent summary tools such as get_vdi_health_summary or list_desktop_pools.

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