hmc_list_virtual_networks

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

The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation: it clarifies the resource type (VLANs) and the requirement of a system identifier. However, it does not disclose any additional behavior such as filtering, pagination, or error conditions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence efficiently explains the parameter with a practical pointer. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of the tool (single parameter, read-only, output schema present), the description is adequate. It covers the essential purpose and parameter usage. It does not describe the output format, but an output schema exists, so that is not required. It could benefit from noting that it lists all VLANs on the system, but this is not critical.

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 description explains the single parameter system_name_or_uuid, stating it accepts either a SystemName or a UUID and where to find it (hmc_systems). This adds value beyond the schema, which has no descriptions (coverage 0%). However, the property name is already self-descriptive, so the added value is modest.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('Virtual Networks (VLANs)') with the scope ('on a managed system'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hmc_list_virtual_switches by specifying VLANs specifically.

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 virtual networks on a managed system. It also instructs how to find the system identifier using hmc_systems, which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives for similar list tools, such as hmc_list_virtual_switches.

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