pool_utilization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that results are 'sorted by utilization' and lists the exact output fields (total/available/in-use/error machines and utilization %). It also explains the target parameter uses a config default, which is not in the schema. It does not describe pagination or error cases, but with strong annotations the bar is lower.

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 concise and well-structured: the first line gives the core purpose, the second adds context and a drill-in hint, and the third explains the parameter. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It lists the output fields and the parameter default, and provides a navigation pointer. It does not describe the exact JSON return structure (e.g., a list vs. single object) or potential errors, but these are minor gaps for a read-only utility.

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 has 0% description coverage for the target parameter, but the description's 'Args' section explicitly explains 'target: Horizon target from config.yaml; omit to use the default.' This fully compensates for the schema gap and adds meaning beyond the input schema's type definition.

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 '[READ] Per-pool capacity: total / available / in-use / error machines and utilization %.' which clearly states the verb (READ), resource (per-pool capacity), and the specific metrics returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like pool_list or pool_get by focusing on utilization and capacity, and the 'am I running out of desktops?' phrasing adds practical context.

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 provides a clear use case ('am I running out of desktops?') and suggests drilling into machine_list --pool for more detail, which gives a pointer to an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it directly with all sibling tools like pool_get, so it is slightly short of a 5.

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