disks/mounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that the operation is read-only ('Lists') and hints at output content via the mount/findmnt analogy, but it doesn't disclose whether privileged mode is needed to see all mounts or what happens without it. This is a gap, though not a severe one for a listing tool.

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 sentences, zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded and the alternative is stated immediately after, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple, optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, differentiation, and even an equivalent command for mental modeling. The only missing context is nuanced behavior around privileges, but the schema partially covers that. Overall, an agent can correctly invoke the tool based on this.

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 each parameter already has a clear description (e.g., fs_type, privileged, output_format). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('mounted filesystems'), and clarifies scope with the fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from disks/list by directing block-device queries there, making it unambiguous for an agent choosing between siblings.

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 sentence 'Use disks/list for block devices instead' provides an explicit alternative and the condition under which to switch. This is clear when-to-use guidance that an agent can act on without inference.

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