disk_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It includes the '[READ]' tag to indicate read-only and lists returned fields, but omits details like required permissions, error handling, or pagination behavior.

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 highly concise with two sentences: a clear purpose line and a parameter explanation. Every part earns its place, and the '[READ]' is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the return fields and parameter usage. It could mention aspects like whether all disks are returned at once or if there is a limit, but overall it's adequate.

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. It explains the 'target' parameter well: 'TrueNAS target name from config; omit to use the default.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 it lists physical disks with specific fields (name, serial, model, size, pool), and the '[READ]' prefix indicates read-only operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pool_list or dataset_list.

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 explains the optional target parameter but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied as straightforward for listing physical disks, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions are given.

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