list_disks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" weakly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description says nothing about permissions required, whether output is paginated, what data each entry contains, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.

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 words with zero padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing. There is no structure to front-load because there is essentially no content.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it omits what the returned disk records contain (device name, mount point, size, usage) and how it relates to the richer disk-inspection tools. An agent could call it, but not confidently predict the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no semantics to explain and the schema (100% coverage, empty properties) is self-sufficient. Baseline 4 applies; nothing in the description is needed here.

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?

"List disks" gives a specific verb and resource, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the closely related disk siblings in the list (get_disk_full_info, partition_disk, mount_disk, unmount_disk), leaving an agent to guess whether this returns mounted disks, physical devices, or partition tables.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no signal about whether to call this versus get_disk_full_info for disk information, which is the most plausible confusion point among siblings.

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