Storage Mount

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. It does disclose that this is a write/mount operation, but it omits critical traits: required permissions, whether an existing mount is replaced, reversibility, and side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is too terse for a write operation with five parameters and zero annotations, leaving important context unaddressed.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (network storage mount, 5 params), no annotations, and an output schema. The description does not cover prerequisites, permissions, side effects, or differentiation from siblings like storage_umount and storage_disk_mount, so it is incomplete for an agent to call it safely.

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 every parameter (host, port, uuid, scheme, profile) is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 states a verb (挂载/mount) and a resource (存储空间/storage space) and flags it as a write operation. However, '存储空间' is generic and no sibling is named, so an agent cannot easily distinguish this from storage_disk_mount or storage_umount without opening the schema.

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 prerequisites, and no alternatives. The only usage-relevant signal is the parenthetical '写操作' (write operation), which does not help an agent choose this tool over its many storage siblings.

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