router_storage

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description is consistent with them. The description adds return-content context (byte counts for mounted filesystems) but does not disclose edge behavior such as whether virtual/pseudo filesystems are included or whether any mount access is required.

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?

A single 11-word sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, and every detail (resource and three data fields) earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. With no output schema present, the description carries the return-shape burden and meets it by naming the three byte counts, though it omits minor optional details like filesystem type filtering.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty schema is trivially fully covered, and no parameter-level semantics need to be explained in the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a concrete resource ('mounted filesystems') and states the returned data (total, available, free byte counts). This clearly differentiates it from the 29 siblings, which cover routes, neighbors, wifi, logs, services, and other distinct domains.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. Given the large sibling group, an agent must infer appropriate usage purely from the resource name rather than receiving any routing help.

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