hmc_partition_templates

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint, and the description adds the return behavior: list of all templates, full config dict, or None if not found. This tells the agent what to expect, which is especially valuable without an output schema.

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 succinct and logically organized: first the overall action, then the two conditional behaviors in separate sentences. No extraneous content.

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 one-parameter read tool, it covers list vs single retrieval and the not-found case. The only minor gap is that the shape of the list items isn't explicitly stated (e.g., names vs summary dicts), but overall it's complete enough for use.

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 coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden. It precisely explains that omitting template_uuid yields a list, while providing it yields a single config or None. This fully defines the parameter's role.

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 a clear verb+resource pairing: 'List partition templates or get one by UUID.' It distinguishes two modes and names the resource precisely. The sibling hmc_deploy_partition_template is clearly a different operation, so no confusion.

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 outlines when to omit vs provide template_uuid, which tells the agent exactly how to request a list vs a single template. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like hmc_deploy_partition_template, but the usage context is clear for a read-only lookup.

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