File Sys Part Info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether credentials/session (host/port/profile) are required, whether it is per-host, or any rate/scope limits.

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 short sentence with zero waste, but it is sparse rather than deliberately economical. There is no front-loaded scoping or qualification, so brevity here reads as under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a tool sitting among many storage/system siblings with no annotations and no usage context, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently or pick it over alternatives.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters (host, port, scheme, profile) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how these connection parameters interact or what defaults resolve to.

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 gives a verb+resource ("查看系统分区信息") but is essentially a Chinese restatement of the tool name file_sys_part_info. It does not distinguish this tool from the many nearby storage siblings (storage_overview, storage_space, system_volumes, storage_disks), so an agent cannot tell which partition/volume tool is the right one.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance at all. With ~10 storage/system siblings in the list, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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