list_esxi_hosts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the output fields (CPU cores, memory, version, VM count, uptime) and the config-based target resolution. No contradiction with annotations. Could mention if results are sorted or if pagination applies, but not critical for a simple list.

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: two sentences plus a two-line Args block. The first line is a high-level summary. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and output details.

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 two simple optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides enough context to use the tool correctly. It explains the purpose and parameters. Could mention error handling or ordering, but not essential for a basic list operation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description fully carries parameter semantics. It explains target as an optional vCenter/ESXi name from config (default used if omitted) and limit as max hosts to return (None=all). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare type definitions.

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 lists ESXi hosts with specific attributes (CPU cores, memory, version, VM count, uptime). The verb 'List' and resource 'ESXi hosts' are explicit, and the [READ] prefix reinforces the read-only nature. Sibling tools like get_alarms, list_virtual_machines are distinct, so no confusion.

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 explains the optional parameters target and limit, indicating that target defaults to a config value and limit sets max results. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the sibling names make the domain clear (hosts vs alarms, VMs, etc.). Some guidance on when to use alternatives would improve score to 5.

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