fc_adapter_list

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

Despite readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already covering safety, the description adds critical behavioral context: hosts_not_read means the host was NOT read and must not be reported as having no FC adapters; speed_reported is raw and not converted; reads host config only; no rescans; and only the adapter list is fetched so it stays cheap.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, a usage sentence, scoping guidance, and a return-value caveat paragraph. Every sentence carries operational value, and the most important purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema present, the description compensates fully by explaining the list envelope, hosts_without_fc, hosts_not_read, and the raw speed_reported value. It also covers the returned adapter fields and the read-only, non-rescan behavior, making the tool safe and self-contained for an agent to call.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the relationship between cluster and host scoping, the all-hosts behavior when neither is provided, and the pagination convention of passing the previous page's next_offset to offset.

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 and resource: 'List Fibre Channel HBAs (FC and FCoE) per ESXi host' and enumerates the exact fields returned (vmhba, model, driver, status, port type, WWPN/WWNN, link speed). It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling storage_device_paths by stating that devices and paths behind adapters belong to that 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: for 'which FC adapters does each host have' or to find a host's WWPNs. It names the alternative tool for a different need and gives scoping rules for cluster, host, or neither, including the resulting behavior when no scope is provided.

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