disks/health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states the root requirement ('Must be run as root (privileged: true)'), which is a critical execution constraint, and discloses the output format (JSON with specific fields). The term 'Retrieves' implies read-only behavior, though it could more explicitly state that no modifications are made to the drive.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the output contents, the mandatory root requirement, and the primary use case. The information is front-loaded, with the essential verb and object in the first sentence. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential bases: what the tool does, what output to expect, the required privilege mode, and when to use it. It could add an explicit statement that this is a read-only diagnostic operation, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to understand and correctly invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that device is a block device name and privileged is required for SMART data. The description reinforces the privileged requirement ('Must be run as root') but adds no new details about parameter formats, constraints, or defaults beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for fully-documented parameters.

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 states the specific verb 'retrieves' with the resource 'detailed SMART health data for a drive', and gives an exact equivalent (smartctl -j -a) plus a concrete list of returned data (self-assessment, temperature, wear leveling, sector errors). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling disk tools like disks/list, disks/usage, and disks/performance, which address different concerns.

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 gives a clear use context: 'Use this to diagnose failing hardware.' This tells an agent when to select this tool over general disk tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or list conditions where the tool should not be used, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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