nand_bad

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

The description explicitly says 'read-only', which is a useful behavioral signal especially given there are no annotations. However, it does not disclose what the output will look like, whether it covers all NAND devices, or any additional operational context. It meets the minimum transparency bar but does not go beyond it.

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 extremely concise: 'NAND bad blocks (read-only)' conveys the core purpose and the read-only nature in four words. There is no filler, and the key attribute 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 low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately supports tool selection but leaves the return format ambiguous. An agent knows it is a read-only bad-block query, but not whether the result is a count, list, or status table. The definition is minimally sufficient rather than fully 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 is empty, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4; no additional explanation is needed.

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 identifies the resource ('NAND bad blocks') and signals a read-only operation, so an agent can infer this is a status/query tool. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'show' or 'list', and the phrasing closely mirrors the tool name. It does partially distinguish from sibling 'nand_usage' by naming bad blocks specifically.

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 given for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as nand_usage or other status commands. An agent must infer from the name alone that this reports NAND bad-block information, and there is no mention of exclusions or related tools.

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