get_node_disks

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only states what the tool does, not how it behaves (e.g., read-only operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or whether it returns cached data). This leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

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 short and avoids verbosity, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. A few more sentences could add value without harming 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 simplicity (one parameter, list operation, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate but lacks details about behavior, return format, or any edge cases. It does not fully equip the agent to understand the tool's context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It only adds 'The node name.', which is nearly tautological. It does not clarify the expected format (e.g., hostname, IP, VMID) or any constraints, leaving the agent to guess.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('physical disks on a node'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_disk_smart or list_node_storage by specifying 'physical disks'.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent receives no information about prerequisites, scope (e.g., whether it includes all disks or only those attached to the node), or how it differs from similar tools like list_node_storage or get_disk_smart.

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