hmc_get_available_hmc_ptfs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds concrete behavioral context: it says 'Issues a GET to the ManagementConsole resource with the SoftwareUpdate group' and explicitly states 'Does not submit a job.' This goes beyond the annotation by describing the underlying mechanism and reinforcing the no-side-effect behavior.

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 brief, with only three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides mechanism and parameter context. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of schema fields or fluff.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it works, and where the input comes from. The output schema eliminates the need to describe return values. The sibling list confirms the tool fits into a larger update workflow, and the description provides enough context to use 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 schema only defines console_uuid as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description adds critical meaning by stating 'console_uuid is the ManagementConsole UUID (from hmc_console_info).' This tells the agent where to obtain the value, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of detail. It could have included format or example, but the provided context is sufficient for a simple identifier.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get available PTFs (fixes) for the HMC software.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling update tools like hmc_hmc_update, which apply fixes. The addition of 'Does not submit a job' further clarifies that this is a read-only query.

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 usage context: it is for retrieving available fixes without performing an update. The phrase 'Does not submit a job' signals that this is not for applying updates, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance beyond this. The note about console_uuid coming from hmc_console_info gives a clear prerequisite.

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