Raid

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, not idempotent), so the description is not obligated to restate it, and it adds genuinely useful analysis semantics about how the signals are correlated. It does not explain what makes this non-read-only, nor whether it hits BMC/IPMI endpoints (which can be slow or require privileges), leaving a gap for an agent deciding when to call it.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the key content near the front, which is good. However, the leading label 'Raid (sm_storage_health)' conveys almost nothing, and the trailing '(CONCEPT:SM-OS.governance.sys-8/SYS-1.5)' citation is internal jargon that adds no actionable meaning for the agent.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining scope and return nature, and it does describe the signals covered plus their interpretation. It still leaves out sibling differentiation and the conditions/preconditions (BMC access, cost of the passthrough probe) needed to call it confidently in a large toolset.

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 (schema coverage 100%), so there is nothing parameter-level to document. The description appropriately spends its words on what is collected rather than on inputs.

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 names the resource concretely and enumerates the three signals collected: SMART (with megaraid passthrough), BMC/IPMI drive-slot faults, and RAID physical-disk state. The verb is only implied (it apparently collects/reports health), and nothing distinguishes it from the closely named siblings sm_storage_health_smart and sm_storage_health_faults.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The correlation rule ('BMC-flagged disk with clean SMART reads as link/aging fault') implies the tool is useful for triage, but the agent is never told when to pick this over sm_storage_health_smart or sm_storage_health_faults.

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