Storage controllers, disks and volumes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious operational context — that the call is slow on iDRAC 8 — which an agent can use for timeout planning, plus it enumerates the returned data (health, predicted failure, SSD wear).

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The scope and returned field list are front-loaded, and the performance caveat is correctly placed last as a secondary note.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so field-by-field, and annotations cover safety. Minor gap: it doesn't note that drives/volumes can be skipped via the flags (e.g., a controllers-only fast path), which would matter given the stated slowness.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (include_drives, include_volumes) are documented in-schema with defaults, so the description need not repeat them. It says nothing about them, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds no extra meaning — baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb ("List") plus precise resources (storage controllers, physical disks, virtual disks) and the exact fields returned for each. It is trivially separable from siblings like idrac_processors, idrac_memory, or idrac_network_interfaces without opening any schema.

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 only implied by the resource type — an agent infers "call this when you need storage inventory." There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to a sibling or alternative (e.g., when to prefer idrac_health for a quick health check).

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