boot_options

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the specific fields reported ('enabled', 'target', 'mode', 'allowable') and the fact that 'mode' can be null if the BMC doesn't expose it. This gives the agent concrete expectations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it starts with the core function, then details the output fields and their interpretation. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully covers return values and their semantics. It also provides enough context for the agent to know when to call the tool and how to use the result, making it complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema has one optional 'profile' parameter with no description, and the description does not mention it at all. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description completely fails to explain what 'profile' means or how to use it, leaving a notable gap for the agent.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('host's current boot override (Redfish BootSourceOverride)'). It also explicitly notes it's read-only, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_boot_device.

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 that an actuator uses this tool to know what set_boot_device values are acceptable before attempting a change. This provides a clear when-to-use context, though it doesn't explicitly enumerate alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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