cross_vcenter_attention

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: point-in-time snapshot (no trending), graceful degradation (unreachable targets listed with reason), and that top_n caps the display but total count is reported. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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 (~100 words) with excellent structure: first sentence states purpose, then explains behavior and graceful degradation, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with zero 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 no output schema, the description mentions key output components (top_issues, issues_total, unreachable) but lacks detailed structure of the returned items. For a global health view, this is mostly adequate, but additional detail on the per-target rollup format would make it complete.

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 fully explains both parameters: cluster_filter as case-insensitive substring applied to every target (None=all), and top_n as the cap on the merged focus list with note that issues_total reports pre-cap count. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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's a read operation that aggregates cluster health across all configured vCenters into a single globally ranked list. It uses specific verbs like 'rolls' and 'aggregate' and distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'cluster_health_summary' by being the global cross-vCenter view.

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 instead of calling cluster_health_summary once per target and merging yourself,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and naming the alternative. It also implies when not to use (per-target views).

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