smart_test_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses it's a read operation and returns status/description, but lacks details on behavior when target is null, error cases, or any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is extremely concise: a single line with [READ] prefix and a one-line parameter explanation. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the operation type.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects. It could mention the output format or provide an example, but it is largely complete given the tool's complexity.

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%, but the description in the 'Args' section adds meaning: 'target: TrueNAS target name from config.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's 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?

Description clearly states it is a READ operation for recent S.M.A.R.T. self-test results per disk, with status and description. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like disk_list (list disks) or pool_list (list pools).

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 parameter 'target' is a TrueNAS target name from config, implying usage context. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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