get_disks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the conditional tracing behavior: with trace_seconds > 0 the result is extended with per-process and per-file read/write attribution, which materially changes the cost and shape of the call. It does not discuss result size or duration limits, but the schema covers the 0-30 second bound and self-termination.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary return payload and then the conditional tracing mode. The enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct returned field rather than padding; a short lead-in verb would cost nothing and aid scanning.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema and no nesting, the description carries the job of explaining the return shape and does so thoroughly, including the conditional trace output. The only gap is the absence of any pointer to sibling tools when the caller actually wants GPU, display or general hardware information.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by concretizing what the parameter buys: 'which processes read and write each disk and which files.' The schema only says 'who uses the resource'; the description makes the added dimension of the result explicit, which is real interpretive value.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns — physical disks, partitions with type, file system, mount point and space, plus volumes, activity, throughput, IOPS, response time, queue and temperature. That is specific enough to separate it from get_hardware and get_system_overview, though it opens with a bare noun ('Disks:') rather than a verb, so the action is implied 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for per-disk inventory and performance metrics. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of how it differs from get_hardware or get_system_overview, and no guidance on when trace_seconds is worth the CPU cost versus a plain snapshot.

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