vmware-aria

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return value structure ('overall platform health, individual service states, and node information'), which is valuable given no output schema exists. However, it omits safety indicators (read-only status), side effects, or error behaviors that would help an agent understand operational risks.

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?

Excellent structure with clear paragraph breaks: purpose → return values → usage context → parameters. No wasted words; every sentence adds distinct value (scope, return structure, use case, parameter definition).

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 single-parameter health check tool without output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining both the parameter and the return value structure. Missing only minor details like specific return format examples or explicit safety declarations that would make it fully comprehensive.

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 0%, requiring the description to compensate. The 'Args' section successfully documents the `target` parameter ('Optional Aria Operations target name from config. Uses default if omitted'), explaining semantics and default behavior not present in the schema. Could improve by explaining what 'default' refers to or providing examples.

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 clearly states the tool 'Check[s] Aria Operations platform health' with specific scope 'all internal services and node status.' It implicitly distinguishes from sibling `get_resource_health` by specifying 'platform' vs 'resource' health, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or state the distinction outright.

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?

Provides contextual guidance ('Use this to verify Aria Operations is functioning correctly before investigating potential monitoring blind spots'), indicating WHEN to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., not mentioning when to use `get_resource_health` instead).

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