hmc_capacity_report

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the derivation process: listing all managed systems and fetching LPAR lists to compute assigned resources, and defines free as total minus assigned. This adds meaningful behavioral context about multi-step computation and formula.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the output summary and followed by the computation method. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or filler 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?

For a no-parameter, read-only report with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it outputs, and how the data is derived. It is self-contained and sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add parameter details; baseline 4 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 clearly states the tool produces a capacity report for each managed system, detailing total/assigned/free memory and processor units plus LPAR counts. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_systems (which lists systems) and hmc_lpars (which lists LPARs individually).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when an aggregated capacity overview across managed systems is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specific output scope makes the usage context clear.

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