pve_get_node_disk_smart

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is read-only (implied by 'get' but not explicit), requires permissions, has rate limits, returns structured data, or affects system state. More context on what SMART data includes (e.g., health metrics) would help.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Get disk SMART data', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it may be overly terse, lacking necessary context for a tool with no annotations or output schema, slightly reducing effectiveness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., SMART attributes, health status), error conditions, or usage context. For a diagnostic tool with 3 parameters, more detail on output format and behavioral traits is needed to be fully helpful.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying SMART data retrieval, which aligns with the schema but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'healthonly' modifies output). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most details.

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 'Get disk SMART data' clearly states the action (get) and resource (disk SMART data), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'pve_list_node_disks' or 'pve_get_node_status'. It specifies what data is retrieved but not the context (e.g., for monitoring health).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., node availability), related tools (e.g., pve_list_node_disks to find disks first), or exclusions (e.g., not for virtual disks). Usage is implied only by the name and description.

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