list_filesystems

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

The description implies a read-only operation by listing attributes, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as performance, authentication requirements, or response format when no filesystems exist. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it is only moderately transparent.

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 one sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the attributes. Every word is meaningful and there is no wasted text.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It tells the agent what it returns. However, it could mention that an empty list is returned if no filesystems exist, but given the simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema covers 100% of parameters (none). The description adds value by specifying the output fields (type, label, size, usage, mount status), which provides context beyond the empty schema.

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 filesystems on the OpenMediaVault system, specifying the included attributes (type, label, size, usage, mount status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_mounted_filesystems' (which likely lists only mounted ones) and 'list_disks'.

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. For example, there is a sibling 'get_mounted_filesystems' that may be more appropriate for mounted filesystems, but no indication of when to choose one over the other.

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