hmc_system_summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals that the tool composes data from three specific HMC endpoints, accepts either a SystemName (exact match) or UUID, and raises ValueError on missing systems. It also details the return shape, adding substantial behavioral context beyond 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 well-structured: a lead summary, a numbered breakdown of endpoints, a clear input line, a bulleted list of return fields, and an error note. Every sentence adds value and the length is appropriate for the complexity.

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?

The description covers all essential aspects: underlying API composition, input requirements, output fields, and error behavior. Even though an output schema exists, the explicit return-field list is helpful and not redundant. It is fully complete for a read-only summary tool.

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 provides only a bare string parameter with no description. The description compensates fully by specifying 'Accepts either a SystemName (exact match) or a UUID,' clarifying accepted formats and exact-match semantics for the sole parameter.

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 starts with 'One-call managed system summary' and enumerates specific data (state, MTMS, firmware, LPAR counts, free resources, VIOS count), making the purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hmc_systems or hmc_lpars by emphasizing the composite nature.

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 'One-call' phrasing clearly implies using this tool when a consolidated system overview is needed, and the list of fields signals its scope. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, stopping 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.