storage_rescan

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond those flags: it is non-destructive yet I/O-visible, may take minutes with many paths, is audit-logged, returns a confirmation string, and errors include remediation hints. This fully discloses expected side effects and operational impact.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the purpose, use case, exclusions, side effects, timing, logging, and return behavior are packed into a compact paragraph. It is front-loaded with the action and keeps all guidance relevant without filler.

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?

For a complex, I/O-visible operation, the description fully covers invocation context, exclusions, side effects, timing, logging, return value, and error behavior. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return structure, and nothing important is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all parameters (host_name, target, dry_run) already carry clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific, action-oriented statement: 'Rescan all HBAs and VMFS volumes on an ESXi host to discover newly presented LUNs and datastores.' This clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the [WRITE] prefix plus the use-case context distinguish it from sibling storage tools like storage_iscsi_add_target and list_all_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 states when to use the tool ('when a storage array presents new LUNs, or after out-of-band SAN changes') and when not to use it, naming the alternatives storage_iscsi_add_target / storage_iscsi_remove_target and explaining they rescan automatically. This gives an agent clear routing guidance.

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