get_mount_options

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only and fatal if findmnt is missing, which are critical safety and error traits. It also clarifies mount_point filters to an exact target, adding useful behavioral nuance. It does not mention permissions or output size, but given the simple read-only nature and output schema, this is sufficient.

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 composed of four short, purposeful sentences: what it returns, how the parameter works, safety/failure, and when to use it vs. the alternative. No unnecessary words, and the primary action is stated first, making it highly scannable.

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 optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage, safety, error condition, parameter behavior, and alternative tool. It is fully adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 schema covers mount_point with 100% coverage, but the description adds an important semantic: 'filters to an exact target'. This clarifies that matching is exact rather than substring or partial, which goes beyond the schema's basic description and gives the agent a precise understanding of the filter behavior.

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 it returns mount sources, targets, filesystem types, and options via findmnt, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_disk_info as the alternative for usage queries, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use for mount flags (rw/ro, noexec, etc.)' and names get_disk_info as the alternative for usage. This provides clear selection criteria and helps the agent decide between this tool and its siblings.

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