check_vks_compatibility

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with a [READ] tag. It adds the important caveat that it 'Only reports vCenter-level support — a listed cluster may still be CONFIGURING,' which is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs. No contradictions.

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 compact and front-loaded: the [READ] tag, purpose, and prerequisite appear first, followed by return values and downstream usage. Every sentence adds information without redundancy.

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 return fields and their types (bool, string, cluster/status objects). It also explains how to use the output as cluster_id for two sibling tools and warns about the CONFIGURING state. This is complete for an optional-parameter read-only check, though exact status values are left unspecified.

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% with the target parameter fully documented ('vCenter in config.yaml; omit for default'), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Check whether this vCenter supports VKS'), states a hard prerequisite (vSphere 8.x+), and lists concrete return fields, distinguishing this read-only compatibility probe from the other vSphere/TKC 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?

It explicitly says 'Start here' and maps the returned cluster MoRefs to cluster_id for get_supervisor_status and create_namespace, giving immediate downstream routing. It also warns that vCenter-level support does not guarantee cluster readiness, signaling when to follow up. It does not enumerate all when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is concrete.

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