hmc_list_resources

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the safe read-only nature. The description adds examples of resource types but provides no extra behavioral context such as pagination, error behavior, or output structure. Since the output schema exists, the lack of return details is tolerable, but no operational nuances are disclosed.

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 brief and well-structured: the main action in one sentence, followed by a list of examples. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple list-by-type tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient orientation. The examples clarify allowed values, and the output schema covers return structure. It could note that specific types have dedicated sibling tools, but that is not essential for using this tool.

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 carries the burden. The phrase 'List any uom resource type' and the explicit examples (ManagedSystem, LogicalPartition, etc.) effectively explain what to pass in the required resource_type parameter, compensating for the bare string type.

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 'List any uom resource type exposed by the HMC' with a specific verb and object. It distinguishes itself from sibling-specific listers like hmc_systems and hmc_lpars by its generic nature, reinforced by the varied examples.

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 general use for any resource type but does not explicitly advise when to use this over the many specific sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that this is the catch-all for types without dedicated tools.

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