Monitor Disk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about read-only semantics, whether the call is expensive or samples over time, or what happens when host/port are omitted. The only behavioral hint is the implied non-mutating verb 查看, which is thin for a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but as a conciseness measure it is efficient and wastes no words.

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 the description still leaves key gaps: no annotation substitutes (safety profile, cost), no explanation of the default behavior when host is null (local vs. remote NAS), and no tie-in to the monitor_* family. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, this is insufficient context.

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%, so host, port, scheme, and profile are each documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource pair (查看/磁盘 IO 统计 = view disk I/O statistics), which is clearly distinct from listing tools like storage_disks or health tools like storage_disk_health. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling or scope (local vs. all hosts), so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when to prefer monitor_metrics or storage_disk_smart, or what prerequisites exist. The agent must guess from the name alone that this is the I/O-throughput counterpart to monitor_cpu/monitor_memory.

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