scan_target

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it states that the tool makes 'read-only vCenter API calls (inventory collection only — never modifies VMware infrastructure)' and that it writes to a local DB. It also notes that it 'may take minutes on large inventories'. This fully discloses the tool's safety and performance profile.

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, starting with a clear purpose, then parameter details, behavioral notes, output format, and a performance caveat. Every sentence contributes value. However, it could be slightly more concise by combining some phrases without losing clarity (e.g., the parameter explanations are embedded in the purpose sentence).

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 complexity (scanning, side effects, performance), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, parameters, side effects (DB writes), return values (summary counts with fields), and how to get more details (via sibling tools). No output schema exists, but the summary description is sufficient for an agent to understand the return format.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage in the description (as per context), the description explains both parameters in detail: 'target' is a vCenter target name configured in vmware-aiops, and 'baseline' is a baseline id from list_baselines with a default value shown. This adds rich semantic meaning beyond the schema's type and default constraints.

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 core action: 'Run a compliance scan of a vCenter target against a baseline and persist results locally.' It uses a specific verb (scan) and resource (vCenter target with baseline), and distinguishes from sibling listing tools by describing its output as a new snapshot that can be inspected via list_violations and list_drift_events.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to run a compliance scan) and guides the agent on next steps: 'inspect details via list_violations and list_drift_events'. It also mentions the default baseline and potential long runtime, helping the agent set expectations and choose appropriate alternatives (e.g., list_baselines first).

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