Retrieve disk details for a specific device, including drive letter, total size, free space, and usage percentage to assess storage health and capacity.
List disks (drive letter, size, free space, used %) on one device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deviceId | Yes | Unique identifier for the device. | |
| organisationId | Yes | The RoboShadow organisation's UUID. Discover it with roboshadow_list_organisations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only listing operation and even names the output fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention any edge behavior such as whether removable/network drives are included, whether sorting or pagination applies, or whether any special permissions are required.
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?
A single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the return fields into a parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read-only list with complete schema documentation, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is not clarifying how this tool relates to the several other disk-focused siblings, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong one.
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%: both deviceId and organisationId are already documented in the schema, including a hint to discover organisationId via roboshadow_list_organisations. The description adds no parameter-level 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('disks'), and the parenthetical enumerates exactly what is returned (drive letter, size, free space, used %). The scope 'on one device' clearly differentiates from org-wide disk summaries, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling per-device disk tools like roboshadow_get_disk_report_by_device.
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 given for when to use this tool over alternatives. The description states only the action, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or the circumstances that would make roboshadow_get_disk_report_by_device or roboshadow_get_disk_summary more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.