disk_health

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 discloses that full data requires root access, which is a key behavioral trait for a read-only tool. It does not mention side effects or return behavior in non-root cases, but the core permission requirement is addressed.

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 two concise lines: the first states the tool's purpose, the second lists fields. It is front-loaded with the key action and includes an important usage note about root. No unnecessary words.

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 parameters and an output schema likely covering the listed fields, the description is fairly complete. However, it does not clarify behavior when root is unavailable or specify return format, which would enhance completeness for a health-check tool.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by listing the data the tool returns (model, serial, etc.), compensating for the lack of parameters. No additional parameter details are needed.

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?

Description clearly states it provides per-disk SMART health information, listing specific fields like model, serial, temperature, SMART pass/fail. The verb 'SMART health' and resource 'disk' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like cpu_status or gpu_status by focusing on disk health.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hardware_inventory or live_sensors. It implies usage for disk-specific health data and mentions a root requirement, but does not compare to siblings or state when not to use it.

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