Список сетевых дисков

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

The description adds useful context by listing the returned fields (ID, name, status, type, size, zone, etc.) and implying a read-only list operation. However, it does not disclose any edge behaviors like pagination, sorting, or errors. Additionally, the annotation readOnlyHint=false contrasts with the intuitive read-only nature of a list operation, but the description does not explicitly contradict this annotation.

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 two sentences long and immediately states the action and scope. The second sentence gives a clear use case. There is no fluff or repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what it returns and when to use it. It could mention pagination or sorting behavior, but it is reasonably complete for a list operation with this level of complexity.

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 schema is empty (100% coverage). With no parameters to describe, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it correctly focuses on the return values instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Возвращает список всех сетевых дисков аккаунта') and clearly identifies the resource (network drives) and scope (all drives of the account). It also enumerates the key parameters returned, which distinguishes it from other list tools like list_network_drive_presets.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Используй перед любой операцией над диском, чтобы получить его ID' (use before any operation on a drive to get its ID). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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