usb_disk

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The '(read-only)' qualifier helps convey a non-destructive nature, but the description doesn't clarify what the tool returns, whether it requires a USB device to be present or mounted, and what happens when no disk is found.

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 concise sentence that is appropriately short for a zero-parameter tool. It does waste a couple of words on generic 'info', but it is still efficient and 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 lack of an output schema, the description should compensate with context about what data is returned. With so many sibling tools, it is also underspecified in how it differs from usb_devstat and usb_temp, making it incomplete in context.

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 coverage is 100% (no properties), so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The description's omission of parameter details is therefore appropriate.

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 states the resource (USB disk) and a read-only nature, so an agent can infer it reports disk information. However, it does not specify what kind of info (status, model, capacity, mount point, etc.) and does not distinguish it from siblings like usb_devstat or usb_temp.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Among many sibling tools covering USB and disk operations, the description provides no exclusions or selection hints, so an agent must guess when this tool is appropriate.

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