get_raid_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It openly discloses the read-only nature and the silent swallowing of an unreadable file, which is important failure behavior. This goes beyond a generic read tool description.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function. Every clause carries useful information: data source, fields returned, read-only, failure behavior, and use case. No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present and no parameters, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned, the read-only nature, the failure mode, and the recommended use case. It is complete for a tool of this simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. The description adds context by mentioning the source file (/proc/mdstat), which is the only implicit input. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 software RAID status from /proc/mdstat, listing specific data types (devices, levels, sizes, health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_disk_info or get_block_devices, which cover broader or different storage aspects.

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 says 'Use to check array health', which gives a clear context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a small read-only status tool with zero parameters, this is sufficient to direct appropriate use.

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