hmc_list_virtual_switches

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety. The description adds behavioral value by specifying the output content (names, SwitchIDs, mode) and the relationship to other tools. No contradictions with the annotation.

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 two short, focused sentences. The first states the core action, and the second explains the parameter and the relevance of the output. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the system identifier lookup, the output fields, and the downstream use of SwitchIDs. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: it explains that system_name_or_uuid accepts either a SystemName or UUID, and tells the user how to obtain it via hmc_systems. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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 VirtualSwitches on a managed system' with a specific verb and resource, and even notes the output fields (names, SwitchIDs, mode). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_list_virtual_networks and makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains how to provide the system identifier ('find it with hmc_systems') and why the output is useful ('SwitchID is what hmc_create_virtual_network and hmc_add_network_adapter reference'). While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, this contextual guidance is sufficient for a simple list tool.

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