list_block_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it explains the SSH/local execution behavior, it doesn't mention important aspects like: what format the output takes, whether this requires elevated privileges, potential performance impact on the target system, or error conditions. For a system-level tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. It could potentially be slightly more concise by combining the parameter explanations, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 that an output schema exists (which will handle return values), the description focuses appropriately on what the tool does and how to use it. The parameter explanations are thorough, and the purpose is clear. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context about permissions, output format details, or system impact, but with an output schema covering returns, this is less critical.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the 0% schema coverage. It explains that 'host' is optional and that omitting it causes local execution, clarifies that 'username' is required only when host is provided, and gives the conditional logic between parameters. This fully compensates for the complete lack of schema descriptions and adds meaningful context about parameter interactions.

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 'list' and the resource 'block devices and partitions', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_disk_usage or get_hardware_info by focusing specifically on block-level storage devices rather than usage metrics or general hardware. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 context through the parameter explanations - it suggests using this tool for local execution when no host is provided, or for remote SSH execution when host/username are provided. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool versus alternatives like get_disk_usage (which might show usage statistics rather than device listings) or provide clear exclusion criteria. The guidance is functional but not comprehensive.

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