makemkv_list_drives

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent operations, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying that it lists drives and their disc status, providing context on what information is returned. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, though annotations cover safety aspects.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to understand at a glance.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies what the tool does, and the output schema handles return values, so no additional details are needed for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not mention the 'response_format' parameter. However, since there is only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description's focus on the tool's purpose compensates adequately. It does not add parameter details, but the minimal parameter count and output schema reduce the need for extensive parameter explanation.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('optical drives and their disc status'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'makemkv_scan_disc' (which scans disc contents) or 'makemkv_list_jobs' (which lists jobs), as it focuses on hardware drives and their status.

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 for checking drive availability and disc presence, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'makemkv_scan_disc' for disc content or 'makemkv_list_jobs' for job status. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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