hmc_get_lpar_proc_compat

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact command executed, the resolution process from UUID to CLI name via REST with SSH fallback, and the return format. This provides rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey, such as the fallback mechanism.

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 with three sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide command details, and finally the return value. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition 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?

The description covers the purpose, input semantics, execution method, and return value, which is comprehensive for a read-only getter. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or when to avoid using this tool, and it does not reference sibling tools for similar functionality. With the output schema and annotations, this is mostly complete but leaves minor gaps.

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 input schema has no descriptions for its two parameters (schema coverage 0%). The description fully compensates by explaining that both system and partition can be provided as CLI names or UUIDs, and that UUIDs are resolved before execution. This adds essential meaning to the parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get the current and pending processor compatibility modes for an LPAR.' It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (processor compatibility modes for an LPAR), and the underlying command is specified. This distinguishes it from other HMC tools.

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 when to use the tool (to retrieve processor compatibility modes for a specific LPAR), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, sibling tools like 'hmc_get_proc_compat_modes' could be related, but no comparison is made. The usage context is clear but not contrasted with alternatives.

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