pix_list_storage_devices

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations by explaining the sorting key (title_operation_count), the scope of counted I/O (process-attached, not machine-wide), and the likely-empty condition caused by missing ETW file provider. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent paragraph adds necessary context: sorting rationale, data availability caveat, and source workflow. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers the non-obvious parts: when it is empty, how results are ordered, and how device_id connects to pix_get_file_io. An agent can decide whether to call it and interpret the result correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description partially carries the burden. 'This capture' clarifies that capture_id identifies the capture, but timeout_seconds is not addressed and no parameter-specific details or formats are given. The parameter names are self-explanatory enough to avoid confusion.

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?

States a specific action and resource: it lists the storage devices watched by a capture, ordered busiest first. It also distinguishes its output from pix_get_file_io by pointing out that device_id from this tool feeds that one.

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?

Explains when results should exist (only captures with ETW file I/O enabled) and how server-side captures differ from PIX UI captures. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives to prefer, but the empty-result condition and linkage to pix_get_file_io give clear context.

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