list_exchanges_on_disk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Present on disk' strongly conveys a passive read with no mutation, and the alias disclosure is genuine behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when no lake/exchanges exist, or volume of results.

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 compact clauses with zero filler; the on-disk qualifier is front-loaded and the alias note is parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves gaps rather than being optimally informative.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description identifies what is returned conceptually but never describes the shape of the result (names? partition ranges? counts?) nor how asset_class scopes it. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking and interpreting it.

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 the single asset_class enum is documented in the schema with its own rationale, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning about asset_class or how it affects which market's partitions are listed.

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 names the resource precisely ('Exchange partitions present on disk') and distinguishes it from a sibling concept ('as opposed to registered connectors'), so an agent can tell it apart from list_exchanges. The verb is only implied by the noun phrase, and the alias note to catalog-exchanges further clarifies identity.

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 contrast with registered connectors implies the selection condition (want on-disk partitions, not configured exchanges), and the alias note tells the agent catalog-exchanges is equivalent. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement or named alternative to prefer for the connectors case.

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