hmc_find_placement

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses filtering thresholds (free memory and processor units), sorting order, and the output structure via reference to hmc_capacity_report. This is useful behavioral context. It does not describe error conditions or edge cases, but for a read-only query that is not a significant gap.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every clause adds necessary information about inputs, behavior, or output. The formatting with asterisks around parameter names is clear and unobtrusive.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, selection criteria, sorting, and output contract (by referencing hmc_capacity_report). Given its low parameter count and presence of an output schema, this is nearly complete. It does not specify what happens when no system matches, but that is a minor omission for a read-only lookup. The cross-reference to hmc_capacity_report effectively reuses existing documentation, making the description self-sufficient enough.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining that desired_memory_mb and desired_proc_units represent the required free resources. It gives units (MiB, processor units) and clarifies that they are lower bounds for acceptance. It does not mention the default value for desired_proc_units, but the schema already includes that. Overall, the prose adds meaning beyond the raw 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 states a specific action—'Find managed systems that can host a new LPAR'—and clearly identifies the resource (managed systems) and the purpose (placement for an LPAR of given size). It distinguishes itself from siblings like hmc_find_system and hmc_capacity_report by focusing on placement feasibility.

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 implies the use case (finding placement for a new LPAR) and explains the filtering and sorting criteria. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that an agent would know when to invoke it. The cross-reference to hmc_capacity_report for output fields also hints at a relationship without providing explicit when-to-use guidance.

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