nanokvm_unmount_iso

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool unmounts the mounted ISO but does not disclose what happens if no image is mounted, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects beyond the unmount operation itself.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the operation and its scope efficiently, earning a maximum score for conciseness.

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 the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, simple operation, presence of an output schema), the one-sentence description is largely sufficient for basic usage. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as failure when nothing is mounted, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description references 'the currently mounted ISO' as the implicit target. With no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.

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 the action 'unmount' and the resource 'currently mounted ISO image', making the tool's purpose explicit. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling nanokvm_mount_iso, which performs the inverse operation.

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 provides clear context: use this tool when there is a currently mounted ISO image to unmount. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the verb 'unmount' and the scope 'currently mounted' convey the intended usage without ambiguity.

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