get_vdi_health_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by sketching the aggregate output (session totals by state, problem machines, pool availability), which matters since no output schema exists; it stops short of detailing freshness or scoping.

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 sentences plus a drill-down hint, all front-loaded: the 'what' first, then the positioning, then the alternatives. Nothing is padding, though the [READ] prefix mildly duplicates readOnlyHint.

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 carries the return-value burden and does sketch the aggregate contents, but only at a high level—no mention of how fresh the data is or what the compact status actually contains field-by-field. Adequate for a single-optional-param read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'target' parameter is fully documented in the schema (default, omission behavior). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource (aggregate VDI health) and enumerates the facets returned: session totals by state, problem machines, pool availability. This clearly separates it from the many sibling list_* tools, which enumerate individual entities rather than summarizing.

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?

Explicitly declares itself the first call for 'how is VDI right now?' and names the follow-up alternatives (list_vdi_machines --state, list_vdi_sessions) with the condition that selects them. Both when-to-use and when-to-drill-down are covered.

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