resource_pool_usage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful behavioral details: sorted by memory usage descending, meaning of -1 for unlimited, and optional parameters. This complements annotations well without contradiction.

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 (under 100 words) and front-loaded with the purpose and key return fields. It uses clear bullet-like formatting for fields and separates parameter documentation. No extraneous content.

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 presence of annotations (safety, idempotency) and an output schema, the description covers all needed aspects: what is returned, sorting, parameter details, and usage intent. It is complete for a read-only monitoring tool.

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% (no descriptions in schema), but the description fully explains both parameters: target (optional, uses default) and limit (max rows, None=all). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema properties.

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 returns per-resource-pool CPU/memory metrics. The verb 'returns' and explicit field list make the tool's function unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like host_performance or vm_performance because it specifically targets resource pools.

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 states 'Use to spot pools near their reservation/limit', providing a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., for VM-level metrics). With many sibling tools, explicit guidance would improve the score.

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