list_host_disk_monitor_data

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It fails to disclose whether data is real-time or historical, how time_interval_in_minutes affects results, or any limitations (e.g., max range, data retention). The description is too sparse.

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 very short (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It could be longer to add value, but it is not verbose.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and simple parameters, the description should explain what the returned data looks like and how to interpret the interval. It fails to provide a complete picture for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names. For instance, time_interval_in_minutes is not explained in any way. The agent must guess its semantics.

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 tool lists disk monitor data for a given host, which is clear but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_host_cpu_monitor_data or list_host_memory_monitor_data. It lacks specificity about what 'disk monitor data' entails.

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 on when to use this tool versus similar list tools for different metrics (CPU, memory, etc.). No prerequisites or context provided.

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