get_lsblk

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

The description only adds 'via SSH' as a behavioral trait. With no annotations, the description should disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, or may fail under certain conditions. It does not cover these aspects, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded. It is not wasteful, but could be more informative without increasing length significantly. However, it earns its place by stating the core function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 7 parameters and no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain authentication methods, potential failure modes, or why one would use this over sibling tools like get_disk_usage. It is incomplete for a remote command execution tool.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions by clarifying optionality, defaults, or relationships among parameters.

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 the tool collects lsblk output via SSH from a remote Linux host. It uses specific verbs and resource names, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_disk_free or get_disk_usage, which address different aspects of disk information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., SSH access, necessary permissions) or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other system info tools.

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