hmc_run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that arbitrary commands are executed and reveals authentication details (HMC_USER/HMC_PASSWORD or HMC_SSH_KEY_FILE). While it mentions returning output, it does not specify exit codes or stderr handling, but the reference link and 'return its output' are sufficient for an escape-hatch tool.

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 well-structured: a concise one-sentence purpose, a warning, when-to-use guidance, authentication notes, and a reference link. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. The formatting uses paragraphs and a warning banner effectively.

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 generic command execution tool, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage restrictions, authentication, and a reference for HMC CLI commands. The output schema exists, so return values are presumably defined there. No annotations exist, but the description compensates with sufficient behavioral and usage context.

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 schema has one parameter 'cmd' with 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify it. The description explicitly says the tool executes an HMC CLI command, giving meaning to 'cmd' as the command string. It doesn't provide examples or syntax details, but the single parameter is self-explanatory and the description adds the crucial context that it's an HMC CLI command.

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 tool's function: 'Execute an arbitrary HMC CLI command over SSH and return its output.' It uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (HMC CLI command), and explicitly distinguishes itself from dedicated tools by labeling it an 'operator escape-hatch' for operations without a dedicated MCP tool.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use only for HMC CLI operations that have no dedicated MCP tool.' It also frames the tool as an 'operator escape-hatch' and warns about arbitrary command execution, making it clear this is not the default option but a fallback.

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