Storage Disk 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 essentially nothing: no statement that this is a read-only query, no authentication/session requirements despite the host/port/scheme/profile connection parameters, and no note on failure behavior for an unknown disk identifier. One generic sentence is insufficient for a tool whose structured metadata supplies no behavioral hints.

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 padding and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient and readable, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 described, but the description still leaves the agent without the usage context, read-only confirmation, or sibling differentiation needed for a 5-parameter tool with no annotations. Given the dense storage_* sibling cluster, this is too thin to be complete.

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 all five parameters (disk, host, port, scheme, profile) are already documented in the schema with examples like 'sda' and port numbers. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which is the expected baseline 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?

The description names a verb (查看/view) and resource (硬盘/disk) with a scope qualifier (详细信息/detailed), so the basic purpose is legible. However, it gives no indication of what 'details' comprise and does nothing to distinguish it from the many nearby siblings (storage_disks, storage_disk_health, storage_disk_smart, monitor_disk), which is the core ambiguity an agent faces here.

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 guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this sentence why it would call storage_disk_info rather than storage_disks or storage_disk_health, which is exactly the decision the description should support.

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