list_rightsizing_recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it reads a specific API (OnlineCapacityAnalytics), mentions warm-up period (values None), and flags a performance characteristic (one stats call per VM). No contradiction with 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 well-structured with a concise opening, followed by relevant details and a clear args list. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (3 optional params, no required ones), the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, behavioral notes, and usage context, leaving no gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: resource_id (optional VM UUID), limit (max VMs, 1–100, default 50), and target (optional target name). This adds complete meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title.

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 it lists VM rightsizing data (recommended CPU/memory size per VM), using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on rightsizing recommendations, a unique function among the listed siblings.

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 clarifies when to use the tool: to compare recommended vs. provisioned sizes for over/under-provisioning detection. It also provides contextual guidance, such as values being None during warm-up and performance advice to keep the limit modest due to one stats call per VM.

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