hmc_lpars

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses return types per mode (str|None, dict|None, list[dict]), explains endpoint selection (cheap quick-property vs full fetch), and states that the state filter is ignored under certain conditions. It also documents the ValueError raised when state_only is used without lpar_name_or_uuid, providing rich behavioral context.

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 starts with a one-line summary and then uses a well-organized numbered list for the resolution priority. Each rule is necessary, direct, and free of redundant or filler content, making it easy to scan and apply.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers all parameters, all six resolution cases, return types, error conditions, and endpoint optimization guidance. It is comprehensive for a list/get tool and leaves no significant ambiguity about how to invoke it for various needs.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's role: lpar_name_or_uuid accepts PartitionName or UUID, name requires exact match, system_name_or_uuid accepts SystemName or UUID, state matches PartitionState, and state_only is a boolean that requires lpar_name_or_uuid. It also clarifies precedence and ignored parameters, giving complete semantic meaning.

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 logical partitions (LPARs) or get/find one', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The numbered resolution priority distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_lpar_summary (which provides summaries) and hmc_get_lpar_description (which gets only the description), making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 a detailed resolution priority with six cases, explaining which arguments to use for different outcomes, and explicitly notes that state_only uses a cheaper endpoint and that the state filter is ignored when lpar_name_or_uuid or system_name_or_uuid is supplied. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this one, so it falls short of a 5.

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