drive_status

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trap: a non-null error means metrics scrape failure, distinct from a server with no drives, warning not to report empty list as healthy. It also specifies the return shape {"drives": [...], "returned": N, "error": ...}. With no annotations provided, this disclosure is essential and it delivers.

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 dense and front-loaded with the purpose in the first line. Every sentence earns its place — return shape, error semantics, and parameter explanation. The Args section is slightly verbose but clear. No wasted words.

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?

For a read-only status query with a single optional parameter, the description explains the return format, error handling, and sort order. It lacks pagination details and doesn't specify what 'default target' resolves to, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, this is reasonably 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 description coverage is 0% with one optional parameter (target) plus default null. The description adds meaning for this single param ('MinIO target name from config; omit for the default'), which is useful. With only one trivial parameter that has a sensible default, schema carries minimal burden and the description covers it adequately.

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 [READ] tag plus 'Per-drive rows (server, drive, used ratio), fullest first' gives a specific verb+resource+scope. It clearly describes what data is returned and the sort order, distinguishing it from sibling node_status/cluster_status which cover different scopes.

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?

It provides clear context ('fullest first') and importantly explains the error semantics — that a non-null error indicates a scrape failure, not an empty result. This is a critical usage caveat. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use this, but the error-handling guidance is valuable context.

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