disk_partitions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the underlying tool (Sleuth Kit mmls) and the action, but does not state whether it is read-only, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a forensic tool.

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, tightly worded sentence with no fluff or redundant content. However, its extreme brevity comes at the cost of essential details, making it concise but not optimally structured for clarity.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the description omits critical context such as parameter meanings, usage scenarios, and any behavioral caveats. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, this description is materially incomplete.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage for both 'source' and 'image_path'. The description mentions the image format (E01/raw) but does not explicitly map it to image_path, and 'source' is completely unexplained. Since the description must compensate for schema gaps, this is clearly insufficient.

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 identifies the tool as listing the partition table of a disk image (E01/raw), which is a specific resource and distinguishes it from siblings like vol_pslist or disk_file_timeline. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'display', so it falls 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the siblings. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with other disk or process analysis tools, leaving usage entirely implied.

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