hmc_list_vnics

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact command executed (lshwres), the transport method (SSH), the return structure (one dict per vNIC), and the UUID resolution process with REST fallback to SSH. This adds significant behavioral context, though it does not mention potential failure modes or permission requirements.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement, then relevant technical details, return field examples, and input resolution notes. It is slightly lengthy due to the verbose command line, but every sentence contributes useful information without 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 read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it lists, how to invoke it, how inputs are normalized, and what fields to expect. It also references companion tools for discovering identifiers, making it self-contained for an agent to use 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 no parameter descriptions, but the description compensates fully: it explains that both system_name_or_uuid and lpar_name_or_uuid accept either a CLI name or a UUID, and that UUIDs are resolved to names before execution. It maps the parameters to the underlying command and points to related tools for finding valid UUID values.

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 'List vNICs (SR-IOV-backed Virtual NICs) on an LPAR via the HMC CLI,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hmc_add_vnic and hmc_remove_vnic by specifying a list operation on a particular resource type.

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: use this tool to list vNICs on a specific LPAR. It also gives prerequisite guidance by pointing to hmc_systems and hmc_lpars for finding UUIDs, and explains the accepted input formats (name or UUID). It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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