hmc_vios

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as a safe read, and the description adds meaningful behavior: accepts either PartitionName or UUID, returns vSCSI/NPIV/virtual optical mappings, and uses the HMC server-side search endpoint for state filtering. It does not mention pagination or output shape, but adds substantial context beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence and then organized into conditional 'When...' paragraphs. Each sentence adds necessary parameter behavior or constraints; there is no filler or 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the two return shapes (list of VIOS entries vs device mapping facts) and all parameter interactions. It could be more complete by specifying the fields in the VIOS entries or error conditions, but it is otherwise solid for a read-only list/detail 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains all three parameters: vios_name_or_uuid selects a specific VIOS, system_name_or_uuid restricts the list, and state filters by PartitionState with explicit interaction rules. This completely compensates for the bare schema.

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 specific verb+resource: 'List Virtual I/O Servers or get storage-detail mappings for one.' It clearly distinguishes two modes and the resource (VIOS), differentiating it from sibling tools like hmc_lpars or hmc_systems.

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 strong conditional usage guidance: when vios_name_or_uuid is provided, get mappings; when omitted, list all; system_name_or_uuid restricts; state filters only when vios_name_or_uuid is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternatives but gives clear context and an exclusion rule ('state filter is ignored').

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