pve_list_node_disks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List node disks', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, how it handles errors (e.g., invalid node), or what the output format might be (e.g., JSON list, table). For a tool with no annotations, this minimal description fails to provide essential behavioral context.

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 at three words, front-loaded with the core action ('List node disks'). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 the tool's complexity (listing disks with 4 parameters, including filters like 'type' with enums), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, potential side effects, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns structured data about disks, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (e.g., 'node' as node name, 'skipsmart' to skip SMART data). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters without needing extra explanation in the description.

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 'List node disks' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('node disks'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes 'disks' (e.g., physical drives, partitions, storage devices) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pve_list_node_storage' or 'pve_list_node_storage_content', which might handle related but different resources.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid node name, or suggest scenarios for use (e.g., monitoring disk health, storage planning). With many sibling tools for listing resources, the absence of any comparative context leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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