hmc_list_sea_adapters

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals the underlying HMC CLI command (lshwres), the five returned fields, and the name/UUID resolution logic including REST-first and SSH fallback. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of execution behavior and edge cases.

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 four sentences, each carrying substantive information: the purpose, the exact command, the output fields, and the name-resolution behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any filler.

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 has only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description provides all necessary operational context: the command run, the output structure, input flexibility, and related discovery tools. Nothing essential is omitted.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that both system_name_or_uuid and lpar_name_or_uuid accept CLI names or UUIDs, and that lpar_name_or_uuid is optional and restricts results. It also directs users to hmc_systems and hmc_lpars for finding UUIDs.

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 'List Shared Ethernet Adapter (SEA) virtual Ethernet ports via the HMC CLI' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also names the exact command and output fields, making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like hmc_list_adapters.

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: pass lpar_name_or_uuid to restrict results, and use hmc_systems/hmc_lpars to find UUIDs. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative adapter-listing tools (e.g., hmc_list_adapters) to explain when to choose this one over those, so it falls slightly short of an explicit 'when-not' statement.

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