list_disks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists drives, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm safety (e.g., no destructive side effects). It also does not disclose any authentication requirements or error conditions. The description is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 very concise (two lines) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the function, the second gives usage syntax and return description. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 the tool's low complexity, the description covers the main function and return type. However, it fails to explain the required parameter 'agent_id', which is a significant gap. An output schema exists (as indicated by context), so return values are defined, but the lack of parameter documentation reduces completeness to an average score.

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 one required parameter 'agent_id' with no description coverage (0%). The tool description does not explain what 'agent_id' is or how to use it. Since the parameter is not self-documenting from its name alone (it could be a target agent identifier, but this is not clarified), the description fails to add value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'List mounted drives on the agent system.' The verb 'list' and resource 'mounted drives' are specific and unambiguous. The sibling tools include list_directory, list_processes, etc., which are distinct operations, so this description adequately distinguishes the tool.

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 a usage example ('disks') and mentions the return type, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, guidance on usage context is minimal, earning a mid-range score.

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