vsan_capacity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description's '[READ]' tag is redundant but consistent. It does not add behavioral details such as what happens if the cluster is not vSAN-enabled or if vSAN is unhealthy.

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?

Very concise, with the purpose front-loaded using '[READ]' and a clear one-line description. The argument list is compact and without fluff.

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?

Adequate for a simple read operation with annotations covering safety. However, no output schema is explained, and no error conditions or return format are described, which may leave agents uncertain about the response.

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 0%, but the description briefly explains 'cluster_name' and 'target' parameters. This adds basic meaning but lacks detail on valid values or 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 it 'Get[s] vSAN capacity overview' for a cluster, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'vsan_health', which likely provides similar health/capacity info.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vsan_health. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The optional 'target' parameter lacks usage context.

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