get_nsx_manager_status

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Only online nodes are listed, so a node missing from nodes is down rather than absent' and clarifies the return format (dict, not list). 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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by usage guidance, return format details, behavioral nuance, and a parameter arg. Every sentence contributes value 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?

Given the tool's complexity (cluster health), the minimal schema (one optional param), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return structure, and a key behavioral point. It could optionally detail the expected dict fields, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the single parameter: 'target: NSX Manager target from config (default if omitted)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could include more detail on the config source.

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 opens with 'Get NSX Manager cluster status (node health, control/management plane)', clearly stating the tool's verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_transport_nodes or list_nsx_alarms, which target different aspects of NSX.

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 says 'Start any NSX health check here: if the manager cluster is degraded, every other reading is suspect', indicating when to use this tool first. It also suggests list_nsx_alarms as a follow-up, providing clear guidance on alternatives and sequence.

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