hmc_get_lpar_msp

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

While the annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: it specifies the exact lssyscfg command, the return value mapping (True for '1', False for '0'), and the UUID resolution process via REST with an SSH fallback. This gives the agent full transparency into what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the command and key behavior in just three sentences. The use of a code block for the exact command is efficient and every sentence adds value without 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 tool is simple but includes a non-trivial UUID resolution process; the description covers this thoroughly. It also explains the return values (though an output schema exists, the description still provides clarity). The context provided is complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining that both the system and partition may be given by CLI name or UUID, and that UUIDs are resolved to CLI names via REST (fallback SSH). This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names and is essential for correct usage.

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 begins with 'Get the MSP (Migratable Service Partition) flag of an LPAR via the HMC CLI,' which uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like hmc_set_lpar_msp. It also explains the exact command run and the boolean return mapping, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve the MSP flag) and how it behaves (via SSH, with UUID resolution). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention the setter counterpart, but for a simple read-only getter, the context is sufficient and no exclusions are needed.

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