browse_datastore

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, fully covering the tool's safe, non-destructive nature. The description adds the '[READ]' prefix which reinforces this but does not introduce new behavioral traits. While the description provides operational context (discovering files), it does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits or authentication requirements, which are not needed given the 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 extremely concise: a single-line header and a short paragraph with a bulleted argument list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text. The structure front-loads the purpose and immediately provides actionable details, 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 tool's complexity (4 params, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, and parameter details. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description is complete for its scope, though it could optionally mention that it lists file metadata (implied by 'browse'). There are no significant gaps.

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 no descriptions for any of the 4 parameters (0% coverage). The description compensates with a clear docstring explaining each parameter: datastore_name (required), path (default root), pattern (with glob examples), and target (optional). The examples for pattern are particularly helpful. While the explanations are functional and minimal, they add necessary meaning that the schema lacks, meriting a score of 4.

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's action: 'Browse files in a vSphere datastore directory.' It specifies the resource (datastore directory) and the operation (browse, implied read). It also gives context by mentioning file types (OVA, ISO, VMDK) and a typical use case (before deploying VMs). This provides a specific and unambiguous purpose, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'scan_datastore_images'.

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 'Use this to discover...files on datastores before deploying VMs,' which gives a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not provide exclusions or compare it directly to sibling tools like 'scan_datastore_images' or 'vm_deploy_from_ova', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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