disks/partitions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful operational context: data is parsed natively from /sys/class/block with no fdisk dependency, signaling a read-only, dependency-free operation. However, it leaves key behaviors undisclosed, such as the default scope when 'device' is omitted and behavior on an invalid or nonexistent device. This is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences with the core function front-loaded in the first sentence; the no-fdisk implementation note earns its place. The second sentence repeats 'partition boundaries' from the first, a minor 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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the output units (sectors and bytes) and the data source, which is most of what an agent needs. It does not state what happens when 'device' is omitted (all disks implied but unconfirmed) or for an invalid device.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'device' parameter ('Optional specific block device to query (e.g., 'sda')') and the description adds no new parameter-level detail. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, 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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a precise resource ('partition boundaries for a drive') with units (start/size in sectors and bytes). This scope clearly separates it from disk siblings like disks/list, disks/usage, and disks/mounts, none of which address low-level partition geometry.

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 second sentence gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to understand the low-level geometry and partition boundaries of a disk.' It does not name sibling alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full routing guidance, but the stated purpose is unambiguous context for selection.

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