hmc_list_memory_pools

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it runs a specific HMC CLI command over SSH, returns a dict per pool with named fields, and handles UUID resolution with a REST-first/SSH-fallback strategy. This adds substantial transparency about how the tool works and what the agent can expect.

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 appropriately concise: the first sentence gives the core purpose, and the following two sentences add operational detail (command, return fields, UUID resolution) without fluff. Each sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 readOnly annotation, the presence of an output schema, and only one parameter, the description is complete: it states the action, the underlying command, the output format, and the parameter semantics. The agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 provides only a string parameter name with no description (0% schema coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter is a system CLI name or UUID and detailing the resolution process. It does not specify exact formats or constraints, but it gives enough semantic meaning for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'List shared memory pools on a managed system via the HMC CLI'. It also names the exact HMC command executed ('lshwres -r mempool -m <system_name>'), making the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like hmc_shared_storage_pools or generic hmc_list_resources.

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 operational context: it explains that the system can be identified by CLI name or UUID, and how UUIDs are resolved. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for shared memory pool listing.

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