vmware-vks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by describing the return structure ('Returns list of storage policies with compatible cluster IDs'), but fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has other safety characteristics that annotations would typically convey.

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 consists of three well-structured sentences with zero redundancy: purpose statement, return value disclosure, and usage guideline. Every sentence earns its place and follows logical progression.

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 listing tool with an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes the return values. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation (given 0% schema coverage) leaves a material gap, preventing the description from being fully self-sufficient for invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'target' parameter (only a title is provided). The description makes no mention of this parameter or what valid targets look like, leaving a significant gap given that schema documentation is absent.

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 'List[s] storage policies available for Supervisor Namespaces' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_namespaces or create_namespace by focusing specifically on storage policies rather than namespaces themselves.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use this to find valid storage_policy values before creating namespaces.' This clearly indicates when to invoke the tool (as a prerequisite step) and implies its relationship to the create_namespace sibling tool.

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