resource_pool_usage

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

The description discloses significant behavioral details beyond annotations: return structure (list envelope with total), field list, sorting by memory usage descending, meaning of -1 as unlimited, and the caveat about non-qualified pool names. This complements the readOnly and idempotent hints 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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the read marker and core purpose, details output format, then provides usage context. No redundant sentences, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains return fields, sorting, and special values, plus usage guidance. For a read-only tool with two optional parameters, this is complete; an agent can call it correctly without needing further documentation.

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 for both parameters is 100%, so the description adds minimal new meaning. It only indirectly references the limit parameter via the -1 semantics in results, but does not elaborate on the target parameter 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 returns per-resource-pool CPU/memory reservation, limit, and usage, and enumerates the exact fields in each row. It names specific resources and the read action, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on hosts, VMs, clusters, or datastores.

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?

It explicitly specifies when to use this tool: "when a VM is throttled but its host is not busy." It also gives clear follow-up steps, mentioning vm_performance and cluster_health_summary as alternatives, effectively routing the agent.

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