list_disks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must convey behavioral traits. The description indicates a read-only listing operation through the verb 'List', which is transparent. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or real-time nature, missing an opportunity to add depth beyond the verb.

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, concise sentence of 20 words that front-loads the key action and resource. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it lists the resource and the specific data fields returned. It could be slightly improved by mentioning whether results are sorted, require administrative privileges, or are real-time, but overall it provides sufficient context for the agent.

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 zero parameters, so the parameter semantics dimension is inherently well-covered. The description adds value by detailing the fields returned (model, vendor, etc.), which is helpful despite the schema being empty.

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 clearly states the tool lists all physical disks detected by OpenMediaVault and specifies the information included (model, vendor, size, serial number, temperature, SMART status). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like list_raid_devices, list_filesystems, or get_smart_info.

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 implies usage by naming the resource but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. For example, it includes SMART status which overlaps with get_smart_info, but no guidance is provided on distinction. Usage is implied only through the tool name and description.

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