hmc_list_fc_ports

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the exact HMC CLI command executed, the parsed return fields (lpar_name, slot_num, wwpns, remote_lpar_id), and UUID resolution behavior with REST/SSH fallback. These details go well beyond the annotation and help the agent anticipate side effects and failure modes.

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?

Three paragraphs, each sentence earns its place: purpose, underlying command and return fields, UUID resolution, optional parameter, and helper tools. No redundant or vague phrases; it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 complexity (HMC CLI, UUID resolution, optional filtering) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers the command, return fields, resolution behavior, and optional parameter. Minor omissions like error handling or permission requirements are acceptable because the readOnlyHint annotation and output schema already cover some context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully carries parameter meaning. It explains that system_name_or_uuid accepts either CLI name or UUID, and lpar_name_or_uuid is optional to restrict results to a single partition. This is enough to invoke correctly, though it does not specify format constraints or exact UUID syntax.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List Virtual Fibre Channel (NPIV) adapters for a managed system via the HMC CLI.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_list_adapters or hmc_list_virtual_switches by naming the exact resource type and target.

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 for when to use the tool: to list NPIV adapters, with an optional filter to a single partition. It also references helper tools (hmc_systems, hmc_lpars) for finding UUIDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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