hmc_get_lpar_description

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact SSH command, the raw output format (including the empty-line case), and the UUID resolution logic with REST/SSH fallback. This gives substantial operational detail about how the tool behaves.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: a one-line summary, the exact command and output, the REST limitation rationale, and input resolution behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 fully covers purpose, execution mechanism, return value format, and input possibilities. With an output schema present and only two simple string parameters, nothing essential is missing.

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 has no descriptions, but the description explains that both parameters accept CLI name or UUID, and that UUIDs are resolved before execution. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare parameter names and compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get the description field of an LPAR via the HMC CLI.' It uniquely distinguishes this tool from siblings like hmc_set_lpar_description (write vs read) and hmc_get_lpar_msp (different field) by stating the exact field and mechanism.

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 states when to use this tool by noting that 'This field is not available via the HMC REST API,' implying SSH/CLI is the necessary route. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough for a qualified agent to select it appropriately.

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