pve_node_disk_smart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly marks the tool as READ-ONLY, discloses that it does not trigger a self-test, and describes the return value (a dict with health, type, text/attributes). This gives the AI a clear understanding of side effects and output. Could add more on error handling or response size, but sufficient for a simple read operation.

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 only three sentences: purpose, API endpoint and return type, behavioral note, and usage tip. It is front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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, read-only tool with an output schema (mentioned), the description covers the core functionality, behavioral nuance (no self-test), return structure, and a prerequisite (list disks first). This is complete for the given 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'disk' parameter already describes device path and listing from pve_node_disks_list). No additional parameter semantics are provided in the description.

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 starts with 'READ-ONLY: get SMART health data for one disk on a PVE node,' clearly stating the action (get) and resource (SMART health data for one disk). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pve_node_disks_list (list disks) and pve_node_disk_wipe (wipe).

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?

Explicitly advises to use pve_node_disks_list first to list all disks, providing a clear when-to-use guide. Also notes that this GET form does not trigger a self-test, which helps the agent avoid confusion. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for self-testing.

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