roboshadow_get_disk_report_by_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only report operation and adds useful content details (counts and unencrypted status), but it does not mention output format, ordering, pagination behavior, or any caveats about how 'unencrypted' is determined.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action, grouping, and key output details with no redundant wording.

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 report-like tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a reasonable high-level view of the return content but lacks context about how it differs from sibling disk report tools and any limitations or prerequisites beyond the required organisationId.

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 the input schema already documents all three parameters, including the meaning of organisationId and pagination defaults. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List disk information grouped by device' followed by concrete content examples ('total disk/share counts, whether any drive is unencrypted'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic disk tools and aligns with the 'by_device' suffix in the name.

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 on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as roboshadow_get_disk_report, roboshadow_get_disk_summary, or roboshadow_get_device_disks. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to use it versus alternatives.

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