hard_drives

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds useful content about what each entry reports (shortages, open goals, raw saved, grid MW) and that `sources=` triggers an additional solve 'as plan_factory does' — genuinely beyond the annotations. It still omits how the solve interacts with pagination or how expensive that call is.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the primary resource stated first and the modifier behaviors immediately after. It earns most of its length, though the telegraphic fragments ('Measured on this world: shortages, open goals, raw saved on what is built, grid MW') are terse to the point of being hard to parse for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and only 43% schema coverage, the description needs to carry more. It leaves `save`, `world`, `limit`, and `offset` unexplained and never says what the response looks like or how pagination/default of 25 affects the 'unclaimed' claim. An agent can invoke it, but not confidently reason about the results.

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 coverage is 43%, so the description should compensate — and it only explains `drive` and `sources`, both of which already carry schema descriptions. The undocumented parameters (`save`, `world`, `limit`, `offset`) are left with no semantics anywhere; notably the interaction between `save` and `as_of` (pinning a save) is never clarified in the description even though `as_of` hints at it.

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 core purpose is discernible: enumerate unclaimed hard drives with a recommended pick and rationale, plus a detail mode via `drive=N`. However, no explicit verb is used ('Unclaimed hard drives' is a noun phrase), and the second paragraph stacks unrelated capabilities (shortage metrics, build-out solve) onto the description, blurring what the tool primarily does. It does name a sibling (`plan_factory`) for the solve behavior, which helps differentiate.

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?

Usage is implied only through parameter hints: 'drive=N details one drive' and 'sources= adds a build-out solve.' There is no explicit statement of when an agent should reach for this tool versus siblings like `rank_unlocks`, `plans`, or `propose_factories`, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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