storage_mounts

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

The description labels the tool as '[SAFE]', implying no destructive side effects, and uses 'Get' indicating read-only behavior. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on prerequisites, rate limits, or potential impacts beyond the implied safety.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the safety indicator and clearly specifies the output, demonstrating efficient structure.

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 parameterless read tool, the description covers the essential purpose. However, given the many sibling storage tools, it could briefly differentiate itself (e.g., focusing on mount points). Still, it is adequately complete for its simplicity.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description does not need to add parameter information. The description succinctly explains what the tool returns, meeting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('mounted filesystem information'), explicitly mentioning what is included ('disk layout and usage'). This distinguishes it from sibling storage tools like storage_lvm_info or storage_partitions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as storage_partitions or system_disk_usage. The description does not provide context for selection among siblings.

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