Storage Removable

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '列出' implies a read-only enumeration, but nothing is said about authentication/session requirements, whether results are scoped to the host in `host`, or any environmental caveats. The single sentence leaves these traits undisclosed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler, appropriate for a simple listing tool. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why behavioral context is thin.

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 NAS tool whose sibling set includes login/logout/whoami/submit_auth_code, the description says nothing about session or auth expectations and nothing about how the host/port/profile parameters affect the call. Given zero annotations, more should have been stated.

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 already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 — '列出可移动设备' (list removable devices) — with a clarifying parenthetical naming USB drives and portable hard drives. This clearly separates it from the internal-disk siblings like storage_disks and storage_free_disks, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

The description gives no indication of when to call this versus storage_disks, storage_overview, or storage_pools, and no prerequisites (e.g. that a session/login may be required) are mentioned. An agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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