hmc_get_ldap_config

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds valuable context: it returns a single resource dict with specific fields, and returns None when no LDAP is configured, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clear return-value explanation and an Ansible equivalence note. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity (no params), the presence of an output schema, and the readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers the return value content, the None case, and the Ansible mapping, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke 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 the input schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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?

Description opens with a clear specific verb+resource: "Get the current HMC LDAP server configuration." It distinguishes from sibling tools like hmc_configure_ldap and hmc_remove_ldap_config by focusing on retrieval, and further clarifies by describing the returned resource dict or None.

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 establishes the tool's role as a read-only getter with "Get the current...", which implies usage whenever the current LDAP config is needed. It also references Ansible's hmc_user state=ldap_facts, giving existing users a familiar context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, like "use hmc_configure_ldap to modify."

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