storage_lvm_info

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

The description includes '[SAFE]' to hint at a safe, read-only operation, and lists the types of information returned. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., LVM installation) or potential side effects. Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is minimally adequate.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with '[SAFE]' and the primary verb-resource pair. No extraneous content.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention that the tool requires LVM to be installed on the host, but the current content is largely complete for a read-only, parameterless 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?

The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description has no need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately omits any param-related text.

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 explicitly states it gets LVM information, specifying the three components (physical volumes, volume groups, logical volumes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling storage tools like 'storage_mounts' or 'storage_raid_status' by targeting LVM specifically.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied for LVM-related queries, but there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with other storage tools.

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