hmc_get_proc_compat_modes

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

The description provides meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, including the exact lssyscfg command executed and the UUID-to-CLI-name resolution with fallback via REST and SSH. These behavioral details help the agent understand how the tool works, though it omits potential error cases or rate limits.

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 reasonably concise at four sentences, includes the crucial command example, and provides necessary parameter handling context. No redundant wording is present, though the command and fallback explanation add a bit of length.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers what the tool does, how it executes, and how the input parameter is handled. It lacks explicit error scenarios or performance implications, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and annotations.

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 0% coverage, and the description fully compensates by explaining that system_name_or_uuid accepts a CLI name or UUID, and that UUIDs are resolved via REST with an SSH fallback. This gives clear semantic meaning to the only parameter.

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 'Get processor compatibility modes supported by a managed system', which is a specific verb+resource. It also names the underlying command and distinguishes this system-level query from sibling tools like hmc_get_lpar_proc_compat by referring to 'a managed system'.

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 explains what the tool does and how the system parameter is resolved (CLI name or UUID), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hmc_get_lpar_proc_compat or hmc_get_pcm_preferences. The usage context is implied but not made explicit.

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