pool_utilization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the output is sorted by utilization and specifies the exact metrics included. It also hints at a drill-down workflow. This provides useful behavioral detail without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The core purpose and metrics are front-loaded, followed by a use case and a drill-in pointer. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return content (capacity metrics and utilization %) and provides a usage context. It does not cover potential error conditions or edge cases, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to call it 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 100% for the single parameter 'target', which is well-described in the schema ('Horizon target from config.yaml; omit to use the default.'). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information, but the schema already fully documents it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Per-pool capacity') and resource ('pool'), lists the exact metrics (total/available/in-use/error machines and utilization %), and explicitly differentiates from sibling machine_list by suggesting drill-in. It clearly conveys what the tool returns and how it differs from related tools.

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 gives a clear use case ('am I running out of desktops?' view) and explicitly points to machine_list for drill-in, which helps an agent decide when to use this vs. a deeper dive. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like pool_list or health_summary, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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