smart_test_results

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the '[READ]' tag merely restates it. The description does add one piece of context beyond annotations: that 'target' comes from config, and that the result set is per-disk with status/description fields. It says nothing about how many disks are queried, whether a target can be omitted, or freshness of results.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and scope in the first clause, then a compact Args block. Every line earns its place; the only redundancy is the '[READ]' tag, which duplicates readOnlyHint.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and annotation-covered safety, the description is nearly sufficient: it identifies the resource, scope, and returned field hint (status/description). It omits how results are scoped when target is absent, which is the one gap an agent would likely hit.

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% for the single 'target' parameter, so the description must carry the load — and it partially does by stating 'TrueNAS target name from config', which explains the value's origin. It does not explain the null/default behavior (the parameter is optional with default null) or what happens when target is omitted.

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 names a specific resource and scope: 'Recent S.M.A.R.T. self-test results per disk (status/description)', which is clearly distinct from siblings like disk_list, pool_status, or scrub_status. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name any sibling it contrasts with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as disk_list for raw disk inventory or pool_health_rca for aggregate health diagnosis. The agent must infer that this is for interpreting individual disk self-test outcomes.

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