sysknife_get_mounts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered — the description's repeated 'read-only' adds nothing. What it does add is the underlying command (findmnt) and the JSON output shape, which gives a rough idea of return structure.

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?

One short sentence with the action and purpose front-loaded, so an agent can decide quickly. Minor waste in restating 'read-only' twice, once at the start and again at the end.

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 zero-param, read-only inspection tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and understand the output source. Only a richer hint on returned fields would push it higher.

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?

Zero-parameter tool, so the baseline is 4. The description explicitly confirms 'no params', which matches the empty schema and removes any ambiguity about required input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'list mounted filesystems as JSON (findmnt)' — which is unambiguous about what the tool returns. It does not name a sibling or explain how it differs from the close neighbor sysknife_get_disk_usage, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 params; read-only' implies a safe, invocation-simple lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against related tools like get_disk_usage or get_lvm_report. The agent must infer the choice of mounts-over-disk-usage from the description alone.

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