qnap_get_disks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the operation is non-destructive ('Get') and details the kind of data returned, but it does not disclose operational nuances such as whether it requires special privileges, makes network calls, or returns one disk vs. multiple disks. This is adequate for a simple read operation but not rich.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It includes the key specifics (SMART, health, temperature) without any filler or repetition. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. It partially does by listing SMART, health, and temperature, but it doesn't specify the response structure (e.g., array of disks, fields like model/capacity). Given the tool's simplicity and the high-level description, it is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.

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 100% with a single parameter 'device_id' described as 'QNAP NAS device ID'. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter format or how to obtain it, but the schema already provides the essential information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get physical disk info from QNAP NAS' and specifies the key data types ('SMART, health, temperature'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qnap_system_info and qnap_get_volumes, which cover system and volume data respectively.

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 description provides clear context: this tool is for retrieving physical disk-level information from a QNAP NAS, with SMART, health, and temperature as examples. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is enough to indicate when to use it over related tools.

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