synology_get_disks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a 'Get' (implying read-only) and lists the data types returned, but does not disclose the output format, potential prerequisites, or error behavior. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to parse.

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?

The description lists the types of data returned (SMART, health, temperature), which gives some context about the output. However, the lack of an output schema and minimal detail about the exact response structure limits completeness. It is adequate for a simple get tool but could be more informative.

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 input schema has one parameter (device_id) with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the 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 verb 'Get', the resource 'physical disk info', and the context 'from Synology NAS'. It further specifies the type of info (SMART, health, temperature), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like synology_get_storage or qnap_get_disks.

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 implies usage when disk health information is needed, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as synology_get_storage. No exclusions or alternative tool names are given, leaving some ambiguity.

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