generate_install_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only specifies the return value ('Generated install-config as dictionary and YAML string'). It does not state whether the tool writes to disk, requires prior setup, or has side effects. The 'generate' wording suggests a non-destructive function, but this is not explicit.

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 as a docstring with Args and Returns sections, and the opening sentence is clear. It is longer due to 13 parameters, but each line is informative and earns its place. No redundant fluff.

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 provides solid parameter coverage and return info, but lacks broader context such as workflow position (e.g., should be followed by validation), prerequisites (e.g., valid BMC addresses, installer binary), or failure behavior. For a 13-parameter tool with no annotations, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It lists all 13 parameters with brief meanings, including default values not present in the schema (e.g., machine_network_cidr default 192.168.1.0/24). However, the 'hosts' parameter is only described as 'List of baremetal hosts with BMC configuration' without specifying the required object structure, leaving a significant gap for a complex 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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Generate an install-config.yaml for baremetal IPI.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_install_config or get_config_template, and the scope (baremetal IPI) adds context.

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 implies its use for creating an install-config in a baremetal IPI deployment, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the guidance to inference.

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