signalgrid_removable_media

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds value by stating 'needs no elevation', explaining that 'available: false' means the USB tree could not be read (never 'nothing connected'), and emphasizing that SignalGrid does not block the device. These nuances go beyond annotation defaults.

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 well-structured and concise: a one-sentence purpose, key behavioral flags, and a return format. Every sentence contributes value, using code formatting for clarity without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description includes a detailed return dictionary, covering edge cases like available: false and mass_storage_connected: true. It lacks nothing critical for a simple read-only listing tool; pagination and filters are self-explanatory from the schema.

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 75% with all parameters (limit, offset, name_contains, response_format) having descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it does specify the return shape, which helps compensate. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers most parameter meaning.

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 reports connected USB/removable-media devices with a focus on MASS-STORAGE as a data-egress channel. The verb 'flagging' and the explicit resource (removable media) distinguish it from other signalgrid sibling tools focused on apps, processes, or network posture.

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 gives context for when to use the tool: it is relevant for shared or plant-floor device managers concerned about data egress. It also clarifies that the tool only reports and does not block devices. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the uniqueness of the resource makes the use case clear.

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