get_smart_health

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden: it discloses requirements (smartctl, root), per-device failure behavior (status unknown), and the only fatal condition (missing smartctl). This is excellent behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: first states the purpose, second covers parameter behavior, third covers prerequisites and error handling. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a simple 1-optional-param tool with an output schema, the description covers prerequisites, error semantics, parameter handling, and performance characteristics, making it fully complete for agent use.

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 already fully describes the device parameter, but the description adds the performance implication of scanning all devices ('slow with many disks'), which goes beyond the schema and provides valuable usage nuance.

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 tool returns SMART disk health with specific attributes (status, temperature, power-on hours) via smartctl, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_disk_info or get_block_devices.

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?

Clear context is given: device is optional, empty probes all devices with a performance warning. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so while the usage context is solid, it lacks exclusion guidance.

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