analyze_partition_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether root or special permissions are required, or what side effects (beyond writing an optional output file) might occur. The term 'analyze' implies non-destructive introspection, but this is not explicit, and prerequisites like device connectivity are omitted.

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 concise: two sentences stating purpose and context, followed by a three-line Args list that adds parameter detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's low complexity (two optional params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, usage context, and parameter meanings. Minor gaps include not mentioning device prerequisites (e.g., whether a device must be connected) or root requirements, but these are not critical given the output schema and simple nature.

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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: device_id is described as 'device serial number' and output_file as 'path to save results as JSON,' adding value beyond the bare schema properties. While not exhaustive (e.g., default behavior if omitted), it sufficiently explains parameter intent.

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 'Analyze device partitions and mount points' with a specific verb and resource, and adds context that it is 'Essential for understanding device storage layout.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like capture_logcat or analyze_network_connections, which focus on other subsystems.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Essential for understanding device storage layout'), implying use when storage partition information is needed. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a tool with unique purpose among the siblings.

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