Unraid API assignableDisks

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations by disclosing that the result intentionally excludes serial numbers and geometry details, which is valuable for agents interpreting the response.

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?

A single, tight sentence front-loads the action ('List disks eligible for assignment') and adds a precise exclusion clause. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the exact data scope and the notable omission, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly and set expectations without further 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, so there is no input schema burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and a distinct resource 'disks eligible for assignment', then further disambiguates from sibling disk tools by explicitly stating what the response omits (serial numbers and geometry details). This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from unraid_list_disks, unraid_v4371_query_disks, and unraid_v4371_query_disk.

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 phrase 'eligible for assignment' clearly scopes this tool to assignment workflows, giving an agent a concrete context for when to select it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative disk-listing tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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